Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol BS2 8BJ, UK.
Br J Anaesth. 2012 Jul;109(1):92-8. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes180. Epub 2012 May 31.
Achieving good health outcomes for patients is the fundamental purpose of healthcare. What really matters to patients is the outcome of an intervention and the effect it will have on their wellbeing and life expectancy. After media coverage, and public enquiry into high mortality rates for paediatric cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary during the early 1990s, mortality rates for paediatric cardiac surgical procedures decreased dramatically both in Bristol and nationally. There can be little doubt that one of the prime 'drivers for change' was the placement of outcome data into the public domain. After events in Bristol, the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Britain and Ireland (SCTS) has taken the lead in measuring and publishing clinical outcome data. It has also discussed how outcome data could be used to assess an individual's clinical performance and how, in the future, this might be linked to continuing professional development, appraisal, and revalidation. Measuring quality and outcome in healthcare is complex. Ideal outcome measures should be specific, sensitive, reliable, responsive, validated, timely, and easy to measure. Monitoring of outcomes can be 'process' orientated or 'clinically' orientated. The 2010 National Health Service (NHS) White Paper aimed for an NHS which 'moves away from centrally driven process targets and focuses on delivering outcomes which matter to people'. Measuring outcome in anaesthesia is problematic. There are issues around clinical coding, risk adjustment, the influence of clinical teamworking, and environmental factors. The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) has identified that the description of clinical practice in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine is currently limited by a lack of valid, reliable quality measures. The NIAA suggests that there is a requirement for further research into identifying the anaesthetic outcome indicators which are most relevant to patients, and then benchmarking the performance of anaesthetic departments and anaesthetists.
实现患者的良好健康结果是医疗保健的根本目的。对患者来说真正重要的是干预的结果及其对他们的健康和预期寿命的影响。在媒体报道和公众调查之后,20 世纪 90 年代初布里斯托尔皇家医院小儿心脏外科手术高死亡率事件,布里斯托尔和全国的小儿心脏外科手术死亡率都大幅下降。毫无疑问,其中一个主要的“变革驱动力”是将结果数据置于公共领域。在布里斯托尔事件之后,英国和爱尔兰心胸外科学会(SCTS)率先测量和发布临床结果数据。它还讨论了如何使用结果数据来评估个人的临床绩效,以及未来如何将其与继续专业发展、评估和再认证联系起来。衡量医疗保健的质量和结果是复杂的。理想的结果衡量标准应该是具体的、敏感的、可靠的、敏感的、经过验证的、及时的、易于衡量的。结果监测可以是“过程”导向或“临床”导向。2010 年《国家卫生服务白皮书》(NHS)的目标是建立一个“摆脱中央驱动的流程目标,专注于提供对人民重要的结果”的 NHS。麻醉的结果衡量是有问题的。在临床编码、风险调整、临床团队合作的影响以及环境因素方面存在问题。国家学术麻醉学院(NIAA)已经确定,目前麻醉和围手术期医学的临床实践描述受到缺乏有效、可靠的质量衡量标准的限制。NIAA 认为,需要进一步研究确定与患者最相关的麻醉结果指标,然后对麻醉部门和麻醉师的绩效进行基准测试。