TWO YEARS AUDIT OF THORACIC SURGERY DEPARTMENT AT PESHAWAR

Objective: The aim of the study was to audit all admissions for significant adverse events as well as to assess cardiac procedures were 161 (14.2%). Various procedures performed included, decortication 103 (9.1%), esophagectomy 73 (6.46%), Hydatid cystectomy 38 (3.36%), closed mitral volvotomy 51 (4.5%), PDA ligation 46 (4.07%), pericardectomy 17 (1.5%), lobectomy 59(5.22%), pneumonectomy 11 (0.97%), thoracoplasty 21 (1.85%), while other thoracic and cardiac procedures were 13.3% and 5.6% respectively. Overall mortality was 3% while morbidity was 3.4%. During this period our department had 17 publications; presented 22 papers in various conferences; has produced three fellows in thoracic surgery, one fellow in general surgery and conducted iFirst National Thoracic Surgery Coursei. One assistant professor and one senior registrar have been appointed during these two years. Conclusion: Highest priority should be accorded to surgical audit to determine various risk factors for mortality and morbidity and ultimately to improve patient care. Moreover, all academic and research projects should be completed through mutual efforts of all teaching staff to achieve desired standards of teaching and learning. Accountability of the medical profession can only be achieved through surgical audit. It is high time that this becomes a part of our ward routine and teaching programmes.

[1]  M. Mack,et al.  Are unaudited records from an outcomes registry database accurate? , 2004, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[2]  Philip Smith,et al.  Surgical Adverse Events, Risk Management, and Malpractice Outcome: Morbidity and Mortality Review Is Not Enough , 2003, Annals of surgery.

[3]  M. Goddard,et al.  Clinical outcome versus post-mortem finding in thoracic surgery: a 10-year experience. , 2003, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[4]  Shan Cretin,et al.  How to evaluate and improve the quality and credibility of an outcomes database: validation and feedback study on the UK Cardiac Surgery Experience , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  S. C. Ho,et al.  Persistent pain after cardiac surgery: an audit of high thoracic epidural and primary opioid analgesia therapies. , 2002, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[6]  P. Goldstraw,et al.  Implementation of the British Thoracic Society recommendations for organising the care of patients with lung cancer: the surgeon's perspective. , 2002, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[7]  J. Mackay,et al.  Six-year prospective audit of chest reopening after cardiac arrest. , 2002, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[8]  A. Hollman,et al.  Interventional cardiology , 2001, Heart.

[9]  R. Gesuita,et al.  Internal comparative audit in a thoracic surgery unit using the physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM). , 2001, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[10]  J. Cunningham,et al.  Public reporting of surgical mortality: a survey of New York State cardiothoracic surgeons. , 1999, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  B. Keogh,et al.  Developments have been made on cardiac surgical audit in Bristol , 1999, BMJ.

[12]  A L Shroyer,et al.  Updates to the Data Quality Review Program: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac National Database. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[13]  M. Underwood,et al.  New deal not satisfactory for cardiothoracic surgery , 1995 .