Assessing quality in cardiac surgery

There is a the strong temporal, if not causal, link between the intervention and the outcome in cardiac surgery and therefore a link becomes established between operative mortality and the measurement of surgical performance. In Britain the law stipulates that data collected by any public body or using public funds must be made freely available. Tools and mechanisms we devise and develop are likely to form the models on which the quality of care is assessed in other surgical and perhaps medical specialties. Measuring professional performance should be done by the profession. To measure risk there are a number of scores as crude mortality is not enough. A very important benefit of assessing the risk of death is to use this knowledge in the determination of the indication to operate. The second benefit is in the assessment of the quality of care as risk prediction gives a standard against performance of hospitals and surgeons. Peer review and “naming and shaming” are two mechanisms to monitor quality. There are two potentially damaging outcomes from the publication of results in a league-table form: the first is the damage to the hospital; the second is to refuse to operate on high-risk patients. There is a real need for quality monitoring in medicine in general and in cardiac surgery in particular. Good quality surgical work requires robust knowledge of three crucial variables: activity, risk prediction and performance. In Europe, the three major specialist societies have agreed to establish the European Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery Institute of Accreditation (ECTSIA). Performance monitoring is soon to become imperative. If we surgeons are not on board, we shall have no control on its final destination, and the consequences may be equally damaging to us and to our patients