18

the levels of enthusiasm for this vary hugely, with some seeing it as an intrusion on their relationship with the patient. The end result is incomplete and unreliable datasets and limited reporting.An alternative is to collect small amounts of data about critical steps in the patient pathway of care. Such “key performance indicators” (KPI) can be linked to nationally collected administrative data to provide a moderately detailed account of the process of care. An example of this is seeking both outcome data (stroke and death) following carotid endarterectomy and collecting data on symptom to treatment time, to provide a more balanced picture of the quality of care. The resultant “less is more” approach allows for small datasets to provide important information to clinicians. A number of factors determine how effective clinical audit is at changing clinician behaviours and patient outcomes. There is now a growing science around audit and feedback. This states some factors that seem self-evident. For example there is evidence that audit and feedback can be made more effective by setting explicit goals and having a clear and realistic action plan, based on evidence about best practice. There needs to be clarity about the changes required and a commitment to multiple feedback cycles, with availability of peer group data for comparison. Repeated feedback delivered in both written and verbal format by people perceived to be part of the clinical team (i.e. part of the professional group) is much more effective in bringing about change than delivery by outside agencies (e.g. departments of health, commissioners of care). We believe that Vascunet can fill this role as it is made up of representatives from all participating audits. Open reporting of data in a manner designed to support and encourage change, can be used to drive quality improvement by focussing on a small number of measures associated with a quality service. This has now been happening in many countries for some years. This approach has been used successfully for some years in Sweden, the UK and parts of the USA to demonstrate the quality of service and drive up standards by placing this in the public domain. The focus has been on care delivery within each country. We believe that the next step is for outcomes data analysis and quality improvement in vascular surgery to cross national boundaries, by common reporting of KPI for core vascular procedures. This is why Vascunet has begun validating national registries and has formed links with the North American Society of Vascular Surgery Quality Initiative (SVS-QI). What is now required is clinical support to agree that it is in both our and our patients' best interests to support a broadening of clinical audit to provide quality feedback across Europe. This will involve defining agreed datasets and seeking financial support to set up a data centre for analysis and reporting. Data collection should remain a local activity, owned by units and national societies, each committed to collaboration within the Vascunet group. We believe that the time is ripe to use the European registry experience to develop quality improvement initiatives throughout the European society nations and share our experiences openly to the benefit of our patients and clinical practices.