 |
 |
Pardon me for sounding irritated, but auditing 'everything we do' is a thoroughly daft suggestion. It suggests that we have a firm scientific background to everything we do, which is palpable nonsense. It is pointless endeavour at times - audit should be directed to those areas we can influence and that we have a plan to improve. One of the greatest sins is smugly reauditing something you know you do well. Setting 'standards' and charging round thousands of audit loops is also completely unachievable, and setting departments up to fail. Best wishes Rowley. Visit the new and improved http:\\www.emergencyunit.com -----Original Message----- From: Accident and Emergency Academic List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dunn Matthew Dr. (RJC) ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY - SwarkHosp-TR Sent: 01 February 2004 19:35 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: New national audits > 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.