Surgeons' Responses to a Surgical Mortality Audit: Accepting and Improving: A Cross Sectional Survey

Surgeons strive to provide the best care possible to their patients. The Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality is a process for improving surgical care and outcomes via peer-review assessment of mortality cases. This article examines the acceptability of the assessments to Queensland surgeons, in addition to examining their impact on surgical care.

This study was a cross-sectional survey. Evaluation forms were sent to all Queensland surgeons who had received a first-line assessment with clinical incidents identified or a second-line assessment (with or without clinical incidents), between April 2018 and January 2020 (n = 484). A total of 102 evaluation forms were returned, giving a response rate of 21%.

Most respondents agreed that their assessments were fair (78%) and informative (69%). Almost half (43%) agreed that their assessment improved the subsequent surgical care they provided. Comments supported this, with surgeons describing reflections, meetings and changes that had occurred following their assessments. Despite the strong proportion of positive comments, some surgeons disagreed with the opinions or recommendations of their assessors. A large percentage (41%) was neutral towards the ability of the assessments they had received to improve surgical care at the hospital level.

There was a high degree of acceptance of the QASM peer-review assessment process. The assessments facilitated discussion, reflection and implementation of surgical care improvements in Queensland surgeons. Further research into this topic should involve refinement of the study tool with a larger, and therefore more representative, proportion of the surgical population.