['Clinical auditing', a novel tool for quality assessment in surgical oncology].

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether systematic audit and feedback of information about the process and outcomes improve the quality of surgical care.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

METHOD

Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for publications on 'quality assessment' and 'surgery'. The references of the publications found were examined as well. Publications were included in the review if the effect of auditing on the quality of surgical care had been investigated.

RESULTS

In the databases 2415 publications were found. After selection, 28 publications describing the effect of auditing, whether or not combined with a quality improvement project, on guideline adherence or indications of outcomes of care were included. In 21 studies, a statistically significant positive effect of auditing was reported. In 5 studies a positive effect was found, but this was either not significant or statistical significance was not determined. In 2 studies no effect was observed. 5 studies compared the combination of auditing with a quality improvement project with auditing alone; 4 of these reported an additional effect of the quality improvement project.

CONCLUSION

Audit and feedback of quality information seem to have a positive effect on the quality of surgical care. The use of quality information from audits for the purpose of a quality improvement project can enhance the positive effect of the audit.