Dunn D C, Gumpert J R, Dale R F, Duffy T J
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992 Jan;74(1):47-53.
General surgeons from hospitals in four well-separated health districts collected audit data about their patients using common software. They pooled their results in order to make comparisons between their practices. Data on 22,497 admissions including 17,473 operations were available. The data were found to be easy to collect and analyse using this program. There were significant differences in overall complication rates between the four centres, but these seem to be explained by differences in the emergency workload, case mix, and age range of the population treated. A study of inguinal hernia repairs and appendectomies showed low complication rates with no significant differences between centres, with the single exception of a higher incidence of wound problems in one centre. Because of the multiplicity of factors affecting them, complication rates could only be properly understood in a professional surgical context. Isolated figures would be open to damaging misrepresentation. Meetings between surgeons well armed with their own results seem to be the best way to forward the audit process.
来自四个地理位置相隔较远的健康区医院的普通外科医生使用通用软件收集了有关其患者的审计数据。他们汇总结果以便比较各自的医疗实践。有关于22497例入院病例的数据,其中包括17473例手术。发现使用该程序收集和分析数据很容易。四个中心的总体并发症发生率存在显著差异,但这似乎可以通过急诊工作量、病例组合以及所治疗人群的年龄范围差异来解释。一项关于腹股沟疝修补术和阑尾切除术的研究显示并发症发生率较低,各中心之间无显著差异,唯一的例外是一个中心伤口问题的发生率较高。由于影响并发症发生率的因素众多,只有在专业的外科背景下才能正确理解这些发生率。孤立的数据容易被恶意歪曲。外科医生带着自己的结果充分准备进行会面,似乎是推进审计过程的最佳方式。