Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WEST, R R
Right arrow Articles by WILLIS, J D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by WEST, R R
Right arrow Articles by WILLIS, J D
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1983 Oxford University Press

research-article

An Example of Medical Audit under Political Pressure

R R WEST* and J D WILLIS{dagger}

Department of Preventive Medicine, Otago University Medical School Dunedin, New Zealand
* Permanent address: Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Welsh National School of Medicine Cardiff, Wales
{dagger} Palmerston North Hospital Palmerston North, New Zealand

Management of medical services necessitates decisions regarding the possibly ineffective treatment programmes, hospitals and (even) individual practitioners. Although rigorous evaluations of effectiveness can only be achieved by randomized trials there has been, in recent years, much increase in audit (or peer review) activity. Ideally medical audit is undertaken as a collaborative exercise, and follows preplanned methods of data collection and evaluation of outcome. However, real management situations frequently do not conform to the ideal, as when the medico-political finger of accusation points at one particular hospital and asks for an immediate enquiry. This audit analyses the mortality and morbidity after coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the ‘suspect’ hospital and in control hospitals. The paper describes the difficulties of obtaining comparable records post hoc and the interpretations of small differences, mostly non-significant statistically yet possibly ‘real’, both in the characteristics of patients operated on and in the outcomes of operations.

Received 1 February 1983


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.