INTRODUCTION: Clinical audit is a requirement of good medical and surgical practice and is central to the UK Government's plans to modernise the NHS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was conducted to assess clinical audit data collection and collation within plastic surgery departments across the UK. The survey identified a variety of different data collection and collation methods, with extensive differences between plastic surgery departments. Those responsible for data collection and its funding were also identified by the survey. RESULTS: Results were obtained from 45 plastic surgery departments. Of the 45 departments surveyed, 12 collect data prospectively, whereas 26 units collect data retrospectively. The remaining departments collect data using a combination of methods. Of the units surveyed, 28 collect data on paper-based systems, with only 13 units using electronic applications. The personnel responsible for data collection were identified as being junior doctors. Departments collecting data prospectively do so from a greater number of sources than those collecting data retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has focused on plastic surgery. The authors believe that similar results would be obtained from a survey of other surgical specialties. A huge variation in all parameters relating to the collection and collation of clinical audit data is seen. There are few standards within this specialty for data collection. Much work must be done in order to reach targets set by the UK Government.
INTRODUCTION: Clinical audit is a requirement of good medical and surgical practice and is central to the UK Government's plans to modernise the NHS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was conducted to assess clinical audit data collection and collation within plastic surgery departments across the UK. The survey identified a variety of different data collection and collation methods, with extensive differences between plastic surgery departments. Those responsible for data collection and its funding were also identified by the survey. RESULTS: Results were obtained from 45 plastic surgery departments. Of the 45 departments surveyed, 12 collect data prospectively, whereas 26 units collect data retrospectively. The remaining departments collect data using a combination of methods. Of the units surveyed, 28 collect data on paper-based systems, with only 13 units using electronic applications. The personnel responsible for data collection were identified as being junior doctors. Departments collecting data prospectively do so from a greater number of sources than those collecting data retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has focused on plastic surgery. The authors believe that similar results would be obtained from a survey of other surgical specialties. A huge variation in all parameters relating to the collection and collation of clinical audit data is seen. There are few standards within this specialty for data collection. Much work must be done in order to reach targets set by the UK Government.