Publication of surgeon specific outcome data: a review of implementation, controversies and the potential impact on surgical training.

Government-mandated publication of named surgeon-specific outcome data (SSD) has recently been introduced across nine surgical speciality areas in England. This move is the first time that such national data has been released in any country, and it promises to provide a significant advancement in health service transparency. Data is derived from nine preexisting national surgical audit databases. However, eight of these were not originally designed for this purpose, and there is considerable controversy surrounding data quality, risk adjustment, patient use and interpretation, and surgeons' subsequent case selection. Concerns also surround the degree to which these results truly reflect the individual consultant, or the wider hospital team and accompanying resources. The potential impact on surgical training has largely been overlooked. This paper investigated the background to SSD publication and controversies surrounding this, the potential impact on surgical training and the response to these concerns from medical and surgical leaders. As SSD collection continues to be refined, the most appropriate outcomes measurements need to be established, and risk adjustment requires ongoing improvement and validation. Prospective evaluation of changes in surgical training should be undertaken, as any degradation of will have both short and long-term consequences for patients and surgeons alike. It is important that the literature supporting the safety of supervised trainee practice is also promoted in order to counterbalance any potential concerns that might detract from trainee operating opportunities. Finally, it is important that outcomes data is communicated to patients in the most meaningful way in order to facilitate their understanding and interpretation given the complexities of the data and analysis involved.

Disinfection of flexible fibre-optic endoscopes out-of-hours: confidential telephone survey of ENT units in England - 10 years on.

OBJECTIVE: To audit out-of-hours flexible endoscope disinfection practice in England and compare the findings with a previously published first audit cycle, with the 2005 ENT UK guidelines as the key intervention. METHODS: A telephone survey of the 104 ENT units in England was conducted out-of-hours, replicating the first cycle. The on-call clinician answered questions concerning access to flexible endoscopes, training, disinfection procedures and record keeping. Information regarding the clinician's trainee grade and their cross-covering duties was also acquired. Responses were compared to the first cycle results and published guidance. RESULTS: In total, 72 of the 104 units agreed to participate. The on-call clinician cleaned the flexible endoscope in 43 per cent of units. However, adequate training in disinfection only occurred in a minority of units (37 per cent), though this was an improvement from the first cycle (12 per cent). Furthermore, 27 per cent of units used an inadequate method of disinfection out-of-hours. One confounding factor may be the increase in cross-cover out-of-hours, with 68 per cent of respondents covering one or more other specialties. CONCLUSION: An overall moderate improvement in the safety of out-of-hours endoscopy in the past 10 years cannot obscure the urgent need for universal compliance with national guidelines.