The duration of each audit was variable due to the requirement for auditors to remain on the unit until they had observed 60 hand hygiene opportunities.
We adopted a stepwise modelling strategy starting with Model A that included the audit year variable only to test the influence of jurisdictions and health centres on Type 2 diabetes processes over time.
This audit highlights our variable workforce.
On each of these days, an investigator (EBS or MCPG) identified devices or procedures that were to be audited and that were in use on at least one patient, and audited all study variables for the selected procedures or equipment.
Because of the potential relevance of income, drinks/week, and level of problems with alcohol (i.e., AUDIT score) to the dependent variables, these variables were also initially examined as potential covariates using simple regressions.
The surgical audit does not collect variables to test the validity of these observations.
No significant correlations were present between the dependent variables and AUDIT scores in the alcohol-dependent group or between the dependent variables and SOGS scores in the PG group, indicating that addiction severity was not related to contingency learning performance.
However, it was noted during the chart audit that the PHR variables were entered in an indiscriminate way resulting in troublesome extraction of information (in key data fields within the PHR as well as in free text areas).
Using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs), no significant baseline differences were evident between participants randomized to the two inductions on the following variables: drinks/week, AUDIT score, craving, positive affect, and negative affect (all ps >.20).
