Where should paediatric surgery be performed?
We have tried to review the evidence for the organisation of paediatric surgical care. Difficulties arise because of the lack of published data from district general hospitals concerning paediatric surgical conditions. Hence much of the debate about the surgical management of children is based on anecdotal evidence. However, at a time when the provision of health care is being radically reorganised to an internal market based on a system of purchasers and providers it is more important than ever to understand the issues at stake. Two separate issues have been discussed: the role of the specialist paediatric centre and the provision of non-specialist paediatric surgery in district general hospitals. There are arguments for and against large regional specialist paediatric centres. The benefits of centralisation include concentration of expertise, more appropriate consultant on call commitment, development of support services, and junior doctor training. The disadvantages include children and their families having to travel long distances for care, and the loss of expertise at a local level. If specialist paediatric emergency transport is available the benefits of centralisation far outweigh the adverse effects of having to take children to a regional paediatric intensive care centre. Specialist paediatric centres are aware of the importance of treating children and their parents as a family unit as highlighted by the Platt committee; this is an important challenge and enormous improvements have occurred to provide proper accommodation for families while their children are treated in hospital. To keep these arguments of large distances and separation from the home in context, one paediatric intensive care unit in Victoria, Australia, providing a centralised service to a region larger in are than England and with a similar admission rate, has a lower mortality rate than the decentralised paediatric intensive care provided in the Trent region of the UK. There is clear evidence that all neonatal surgery and anaesthesia should be conducted only by specialists. The debate now centres around the number of complex surgical cases a unit should treat to maintain its specialist status. The NHS executive, in its guidelines on contracting for specialist services, emphasises that "Sensible contracting needs to take into account the optimum population size not only for the stability of contracted referrals but also to give sufficient 'critical mass' for clinical effectiveness." Achieving this balance has consequences, not just for the maintenance of surgical expertise, but for the essential ancilliary services. There is clear evidence in anaesthesia that anaesthetists doing small numbers of neonatal procedures had significantly worse results. The same seems to be true in the fields of oncology, radiology, pathology, and intensive care. The reasons why the results of management of certain paediatric conditions are better at specialist centres are open to speculation. Presumably greater exposure to rare complex cases, concentration of expertise, more peer review, and a trickle down effect of the multidisciplinary approach all help to keep health care workers up to date with current world practice. In addition, it allows for appropriate specialist on call rotas and dedicated junior staff. If insufficient numbers of specialist surgical cases are being treated at a centre then the whole multidisciplinary team suffers. The 1989 NCEPOD report states "that paediatricians and general surgeons must recognise that small babies differ from other patients not only in size, and that they pose quite separate problems of pathology and management." The need for large centres of paediatric surgical expertise is now accepted by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons, the Senate of Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Audit