Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
The letters on the Audit Commission's report Anaesthesia
under Examination1 from those working in
anaesthesia have been predictable, varying from those from apoplectic
sceptics2 to the welcoming.
3 4
Having read
these and attended the Audit Commission's day in London, we think that
the letters are misinformed and based on an incorrect premise.
Firstly, the Audit Commission's report must be considered in context.
It was commissioned in 1996 by the chief executives of NHS trusts to
provide information on anaesthetists
a group that consumed 3% of
trust expenditure but affected 60% of trust income. The report cannot
be read without account being taken of the bias implicit in the facts
of who the report was written for and who would pay for it. In fact, it
looked at the perioperative period, when many workers are involved. As
a result of this underlying direction to the Audit Commission's
investigation, any conclusions drawn