Conclusions
In this editorial I have raised a number of considerations and posed several questions. This is well and good, but the provision of the right answers is what mattes. In this respect, I am as much at a loss as any body, but I am convinced of the need for dialogue and discussions at the national and international levels and between colleges and institutions on how surgical practice in all its aspects should be redirected to meet the changing medical scenario of this century.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 31: 53–72
Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M (1991) POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 78: 356–360
Donabedian A (1992) Quality assurance: structure, process and outcome. Quality Stand 7 (11 suppl QA): 4–5
Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddardt GL, Torrance GW (1997) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Eyspach E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, et al. (1993) The gastro-intestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) development and validation of a new instrument. Chirugie 64: 264–274
Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull 51: 327–358
Joice P, Hanna GB, Cuschieri A (1998) Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery—a human reliability analysis. Appl Ergonom 29: 409–414
Kirwin B (1998) Human reliability assessment. In: Wilson JR, Corlett EN (eds) Evaluation of human work: a practical methodology, 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis, pp 921–968
Reason J (1994) Human error, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cuschieri, A. The dawn of a new century. Surg Endosc 14, 1–4 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900001
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004649900001