> Good idea in principal I think - it's the only way you can
> force improvement. But these three audit cycles alone are
> going to involve a lot of work. What's going to happen when
> they want us, understandably, to ensure and improve the
> quality of EVERYTHING we do? Seems like that's the way it's
I like the idea of auditing everything we do. It is more of a problem if we
concentrate on a few areas- if resources are diverted to these areas it will
inevitably be to the detriment of other areas. This may be part of the
acceptance that A and E requires more resources; and that the current work
rate of 2.5 patients/ doctor/ hour is unacceptably high. It is a bit of a
pity that these come from CHAI rather than being clinician led like NCEPOD;
as the latter type of audit seems to be more effective.
I note that these are retrospective audits. The data should therefore be
collectable by your hospital's audit department. (Makes your department look
better if you put in a bid for resources for national audits as well). It is
slightly worrying that the covering letter suggests that SHOs be involved in
data collection however- looking at the data to be collected, it is
difficult to see how this would benefit their training; and I would be
surprised if many departments are going to be available to spare them from
their service commitment (especially early in the posts, when inexperience
tends to mean that they are at their busiest).
Overall, carrying out national audits and ensuring that resources are in
place to do so is an excellent idea.
Matt Dunn
Warwick
This email has been scanned for viruses by NAI AVD however we are unable to
accept responsibility for any damage caused by the contents.
The opinions expressed in this email represent the views of the sender, not
South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHS Trust unless explicitly stated.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender.
|