Results
A total of 62 audits was registered via the survey. Students were involved in 46 audits (74.2%) while practicing clinicians were only involved in 29 audits (46.7%). Fifty audit groups (80.6%) sought an approval from the General Directorate of Human Resources Development at the MoH, the body known to be responsible for approving studies, and/or the local healthcare facility administration before commencing their work. Training in clinical auditing was formerly received by 55 authors (88.7%). Senior supervision was available in 56 audits (90.3%), with one supervisor having been mentioned in 42 of them (67.7%).
The majority of audits (17; 27.4%) were multicentric; conducted at more than one healthcare facility. Thirteen audits (20.9%) were conducted at one hospital (Al-Helal Al-Emirati Hospital for Obstetrics and Gynaecology). Audits were also performed in various specialties, including 18 audits (29%) in obstetrics, 16 audits (25.8%) in medicine, 11 audits (17.7%) each in surgery and paediatrics, and six audits (9.6%) in other specialties. A clear trend of increasing numbers of audits was observed with 4 audits (6.4%) completed in 2015, 12 audits (19.3%) in 2016, 22 audits (35.4%) in 2017, and 24 audits (38.7%) in 2018. Clear comparative standards were identified in 56 audits (90.3%) while six audits (9.7%) reported not setting standards at all. Among those with chosen standards, 40 audits (64.5%) used international guidelines while only 14 audits (22.5%) applied local practice guidelines (Table 1 ).
Improvement in documentation was recommended in 44 audits (71%), development of national guidelines in 37 audits (59.6%), staff training in 32 audits (51.6%) and patient education in 14 audits (22.5%). 32 audits (51.6%) were presented to the local staff at the healthcare facility where the work was originally conducted. 48 audits (77.4%) were presented at other local meetings or conferences and 23 audits (37%) were presented at national or international meetings. The results of five audits (8%) were not presented anywhere and none of them had completed the cycle (Table 2 ).
The abstracts of 13 audits (20.9%) were published in supplements of peer-reviewed journals. Finally, the audit cycle was completed in 13 projects (20.9%), with only seven of them (11.3%) reporting subsequent improvements in clinical practice (table 2) . Of these seven audits, only one did not show improvements in practice following closing the loop.