The Western Australian Audit of Surgical Mortality is a prototype for a national scheme
Most surgical care is conducted to a high standard; when a death occurs under surgical care, the patient is usually elderly, with comorbid disease, and a gathering momentum of events leads towards death. However, this does not abrogate the need for accountability in the safety and quality of surgical care. Across the world, established programs promote a culture of reflective practice in surgery and anaesthesia1,2 which have been used as the basis for developing guidelines for perioperative care.3 For sustained accountability, programs require a high degree of perceived clinical ownership, confidentiality, safeguards for the process and participants (such as legal privilege), transparency, and a health care system oriented towards system improvement. Other requirements are robust quality assurance and safeguards to prevent suppression of process or practice failures, as well as full participation and complete data collection, with protected time for individual clinicians, if improvements in health care are to be facilitated.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1 University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
- 2 Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.
- 3 John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW.
- 1. Gray CJG, Hoile RW, Ingram GS, Sherry KM. The report of the national confidential enquiry into perioperative deaths 1996/1997. London: National Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Deaths, 1998.
- 2. Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman EJ, et al. How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: Clinical Risk Unit and Association of Litigation and Risk Management protocol. BMJ 2000; 320: 777-781.
- 3. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN guideline 77: post-operative management in adults. A practical guide to postoperative care for clinical staff. 2004. Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign77.pdf (accessed Sep 2005).
- 4. Aitken RJ. Scottish model for surgical mortality used in Australasia. BMJ 2005; 330: 1389-1390.
- 5. Semmens JB, Aitken RJ, Sanfilippo FM, et al. The Western Australian Audit of Surgical Mortality: advancing surgical accountability. Med J Aust 2005; 183: 504-508.
- 6. Thompson AM, Stonebridge PA. Building a framework for trust: critical event analysis of deaths in surgical care. BMJ 2005; 330: 1139-1142.
- 7. Smyth J. Surgical Audit Part I and Part II. Med J Aust 1959; 1: 313-319.
- 8. Eno LM, Spigelman AD. A survey of surgical audit in Australia: whither clinical governance? J Qual Clin Pract 2000; 20: 2-4.
- 9. Spigelman AD, Swan JR. Measuring clinical audit and peer review practice in a diverse health care setting. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73: 1041-1043.
- 10. Spigelman AD, Swan J. A review of the Australian Incident Monitoring System. ANZ J Surg 2005; 75: 657-661.