Review of the perceptions of general surgical staff within the Wessex region of the status of quality assurance and surgical audit

Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1993 Jul;75(4 Suppl):104-7.


The opinion of surgical staff about the present state and effectiveness of surgical audit within a single regional health authority has been obtained by questionnaire. Seventy-five per cent of registrars/senior registrars and 72 per cent of consultants completed and returned the proforma. The majority of registrars (86 per cent) believe that it is vital or very important to collect clinical outcome information that is relevant, accurate and complete. However, more than half (56 per cent) felt that these objectives were not being met. All consultants also agreed with the statement that meaningful surgical audit and quality assurance must be based on confidential critical peer review of relevant, accurate, ongoing and complete information. None, however, believed that this objective was being met completely, while only 41 per cent felt that they were doing even 'fairly well', with the principle reason for failure being lack of time. These results support the view that most surgeons are keen to achieve meaningful audit, but at present this objective is not being satisfactorily met.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Attitude of Health Personnel*
  • England
  • Humans
  • Medical Audit*
  • Medical Staff, Hospital / psychology
  • Quality Assurance, Health Care*
  • Surgery Department, Hospital / standards*