Uptake of new treatment strategies for deep vein thrombosis: an international audit.

OBJECTIVE: Study of the uptake of new medical technologies provides useful information on the transfer of published evidence into usual practice. We conducted an audit of selected hospitals in three countries (Canada, France, and Switzerland) to identify clinical predictors of low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin use and outpatient treatment, and to compare the pace of uptake of these new therapeutic approaches across hospitals. DESIGN: Historical review of medical records. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed the medical records of 3043 patients diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in five Canadian, two French, and two Swiss teaching hospitals from 1994 to 1998. Measures. We explored independent clinical variables associated with LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment, and determined crude and adjusted rates of LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment across hospitals. RESULTS: For the years studied, the overall rates of LMW heparin use and outpatient treatment in the study sample were 34.1 and 15.8%, respectively, with higher rates of use in later years. Many comorbidities were negatively associated with outpatient treatment, and risk-adjusted rates of use of these new approaches varied significantly across hospitals. CONCLUSION: There has been a relatively rapid uptake of LMW heparins and outpatient treatment for DVT in their early years of availability, but the pace of uptake has varied considerably across hospitals and countries.

Are joint audits associated with higher audit fees?

In its October 2010 Green Paper on audit policy, the European Commission suggested that joint audits might be a way of improving the audit market in Europe. However, some parties consider that a joint audit system is not an efficient solution because the perceived improvements in audit quality, if any, are not commensurate with the significant increase in audit fees. We compare audit fees paid during the years 2007-2011 by listed companies in France, where joint audits are mandatory, with those paid by British and Italian companies. Theory suggests that audit fees in countries with high investor protection, such as the UK, are likely to be greater than those in countries with lower investor protection, such as France and Italy, ceteris paribus. However, we find significantly higher audit fees in France after controlling for well-documented auditor, client, and engagement attributes, which vary across countries. Furthermore, since we do not find statistically significant differences in the magnitude of abnormal accruals, the higher audit fees observed in France do not appear to be associated with higher audit quality.