Circumcision complications 2009 in A&E at Birmingham Children

This is a list provided by Birmingham Children's Hospital in response to a request for a list of the child complications seen in A&E in 2009 from male circumcision. This was the only hospital to provide a comprehensive verified dataset - it seems they had conducted this audit prior to my asking. When I asked why, they advised that due to the "volume of attendances at ED, the department wanted to investigate to ensure that appropriate aftercare was being provided to patients." Pressed to advise what this meant - were the concerns regarding NHS NTC - they eventually admitted in 2013 that "an internal report which was sent to the commissioners and still to date we have had no communication from them." So it would appear that BCH were concerned about the quality of local religious cutting schemes, but up to 2 years after raising this concern, the local commissioners with responsibility for those schemes had still failed to respond. It's perhaps important to note that correspondence with Heart of Birmingham PCT and South Birmingham PCT - which collectively operated the biggest scheme, cutting >1,500 babies in one year via a local GP, appear not to have enforced the terms of the contract which required the circumcision contractor to provide monthly details of adverse events treated in primary care or referred to A&E. Both commissioners advised me they didn't have information readily available on complications - one then asked the contractor if any complications had been seen (in a series of >250 infant NTCs) to which he replied 'zero'. If you have read any of the information I've uploaded from hospital/commissioner datasets or even the range of reports into acute complications of neonatal circumcision you'll know this is a non credible response. I hope you'll also be asking the question, can someone with a cultural and financial vested interest in male circumcision be trusted to monitor his own complications?? I investigate this issue further on my commentary site via an analysis of what Milah UK say publicly about ritual circumcisions and what UK doctor mohels actually recorded at audit. See http://emperorsnewcock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/complications.html本数据集为伯明翰儿童医院（Birmingham Children's Hospital）应相关请求提供的2009年因男性包皮环切术就诊于急诊室（Accident and Emergency，A&E）的儿童并发症清单。该医院是唯一一家提供经过全面验证的数据集的医疗机构——据悉其早在笔者提出请求前就已开展了相关审计工作。当笔者询问其开展审计的缘由时，院方表示：“鉴于急诊科室就诊量庞大，该科室希望通过调查确保为患者提供了恰当的术后护理。”在笔者进一步追问其具体含义——是否涉及对英国国民保健署（National Health Service，NHS）辖下NTC项目的担忧——后，院方于2013年最终承认：“我们曾向相关委托方提交过一份内部报告，但截至目前未收到对方的任何回复。”由此可见，伯明翰儿童医院对当地宗教包皮环切项目的质量存在担忧，但在其提出该顾虑两年后，负责监管此类项目的当地委托方仍未作出任何回应。值得注意的是，伯明翰中部初级保健信托（Heart of Birmingham PCT）与南伯明翰初级保健信托（South Birmingham PCT）联合运营着当地规模最大的包皮环切项目——年均通过当地全科医生（General Practitioner，GP）为超过1500名婴儿实施手术——但双方似乎均未执行合同条款，该条款要求包皮环切服务承包商每月上报在初级保健机构处理或转诊至A&E的不良事件细节。两家委托方均告知笔者，他们无法随时获取相关并发症信息——其中一家曾询问承包商，在超过250例婴儿NTC手术中是否出现过并发症，承包商的答复为“零例”。倘若您曾阅读过笔者上传的医院/委托方数据集相关资料，或是任何关于新生儿包皮环切术急性并发症的研究报告，便会知晓这一答复并不可信。想必您也会提出这样的疑问：那些因男性包皮环切术而兼具文化与经济既得利益者，能否被信任去监控自身相关的并发症？笔者将在本人的评论网站上进一步探讨该问题，分析英国犹太割礼协会（Milah UK）就宗教仪式包皮环切术的公开表述，以及英国医生割礼师（mohels）在审计中实际记录的情况。相关链接：http://emperorsnewcock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/complications.html