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.
BMJ 2005;330:1098-1099 (14 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7500.1098
Scottish scheme has worked well but may not be transferable to other settings
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Should surgical mortality be routinely monitored? In this issue Thompson and Stonebridge present a compelling argument for systematic audits (p 1139)1 and Esmail, in the first part of a new series on the General Medical Council and revalidation, argues that doctors will have nothing to fear from the GMC's revised plans (p 1144).2
The Scottish Audit of Surgical Mortality is a voluntary, peer reviewed, critical event analysis that has become an established part of standard surgical practice in Scotland. Scottish surgeons have shown tremendous support for the programme99% of surgeons participate and 91% of deaths under surgical care in Scotland are audited. They support the scheme perhaps because it seems to be effective. After errors in specific processes of care (failure to use intensive care units and failure to use prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis) were identified by the scheme as contributing to surgical deaths,
Nancy N Baxter, assistant professor
Division of Surgical Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, MMC 450, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA (baxte025@umn.edu)
Read all Rapid Responses