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.

Mentoring during surgical training: consensus recommendations for mentoring programmes from the Association of Surgeons in Training.

Mentoring has been present within surgical training for many years, albeit in different forms. There is evidence that formal mentoring can improve patient outcomes and facilitate learning and personal growth in the mentee. The Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) is an independent educational charity working to promote excellence in surgical training. This document recommends the introduction of a structured mentoring programme, which is readily accessible to all surgical trainees. A review of the available evidence--including an ASiT-led survey of its membership--highlights the desire of surgical trainees to have a mentor, whilst the majority do not have access to one. There is also limited training for those in mentoring roles. In response, ASiT have implemented a pilot mentoring scheme, with surgical trainees acting both as mentors and mentees. Based on the existing literature, survey data and pilot experience, ASiT formalises in this document consensus recommendations for mentoring in surgical training.

Balancing accountability and improvement: a case study from Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: The Massachusetts Health Quality Partnership (MHQP), a coalition of health care providers and insurers, and business and government organizations, conducted a voluntary statewide survey about patients' experiences with inpatient care at Massachusetts hospitals in 1998, and made the results public. METHODS: MHQP contracted with The Picker Institute (Boston) to conduct the statewide survey about seven dimensions of care for adult medical, surgical, and maternity patients at 58 hospitals across Massachusetts. The communications strategy for public report release was designed to promote fair reporting by the news media and emphasize the improvement goals of performance measurement above evaluation. Along with critical agreements on report design, trial surveys, advertising, and commitments from coalition members about the use of survey results, these measures sought to drive out fear of participation and unfair evaluation. RESULTS: Statewide news media coverage reflected the project's communications goals. Editorial praise for the report was widespread. The project stimulated numerous hospital quality improvement efforts and focused hospital leaders on the need to improve patients' experiences with hospital care. All participating hospitals voluntarily renewed their enrollment for a third survey and public report cycle, and new hospitals joined the project. DISCUSSION: Voluntary public release of performance information by health care providers is possible when the risks, motivations, rewards, and penalties of measurement and public reporting are understood and carefully managed. The goals of public accountability reporting will be realized sooner when it is wedded to the spirit of continuous quality improvement and when providers are engaged as partners at every step of the measurement and reporting process.