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 2008;336:249 (2 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.39470.702627.59
Nigel Hawkes, health editor, the Times
nigel.hawkes@thetimes.co.uk
The UK governments latest plan is to try asking the patients rather than the doctors
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Death is an end point we can all understand. When reading the latest clinical trial, I always find my eyes drawn to the column that shows mortality. This may be a little morbid, but no other measure has the crisp finality of death.
As a means of assessing the quality of care, however, it has many drawbacks. True, the heart surgeons have submitted to an audit of the number of their patients who die, enabling the public to weigh up the odds before going under the knife. But in most circumstances, mortality—even a run of bad results—tells us little about the quality of care.
In recent months both Papworth Hospital near Cambridge and Glasgow Royal Infirmary stopped their heart transplant programme after a number of deaths—seven out of 20 at Papworth, and four out of 11 at Glasgow. Both resumed after close scrutiny found no common factors behind the deaths.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses