Could sequential individual peer reviewed mortality audit data be used in appraisal?

Background: Surgeons have traditionally monitored mortality as part of their surgical practice. The aim of this study was to determine whether peer review surgical mortality data might be useful in appraisal. Methods: Since 1994, the Scottish Audit of Surgical Mortality (SASM) has performed critical event analysis of deaths under surgical care in Scotland. The anonymised, peer reviewed records of 16 consenting surgeons from a single Trust were reviewed over a three year period (2000-2002). Results: Compliance with this voluntary audit was high at 97%. Individual surgeon profiles and comparison with colleagues in similar surgical practice demonstrated adverse events were infrequent and usually due to problems with the process of care rather than individual surgeon errors. The number of case note reviews requested increased significantly over the three years (chi square 9.5, p<0.01) although there was no significant change in the mean number of deaths per surgeon (18) or mean number of adverse events per surgeon (4). Conclusions: The use of sequential individual peer reviewed mortality data for anonymised comparison with local colleagues is now in use in appraisal and has potential for the revalidation process. This could provide reassurance that individual surgeons are complying with the General Medical Council concept of "good clinical practice" and highlight local problems in the process of care.