Evaluation of quality of surgical care begins with the Donabedian triad focusing on structure, process, and outcomes. Outcomes, which are inherently patient-centered, are most easily and commonly measured, and are indeed fundamental to evaluating the quality of surgical care. Specifically, post-operative adverse events (AEs) remain the most frequently measured and reported outcomes, as they represent harm to the patient; and thus, are often used as a means for comparing institutional, as well as, individual surgeon performance. The importance of rigorous recording of clearly defined AEs, although widely recognized, is poorly performed in practice. In previous work, created in accordance to the Clavien-Dindo classification, we developed and integrated a classification of Thoracic Morbidity & Mortality (TM&M) within The Ottawa Hospital’s Division of Thoracic Surgery allowing objective and standardized assessment of all post-operative AEs following all surgeries. In this thesis, the complementary studies that were conducted surrounding the continued clinical application and critical appraisal of the TM&M classification system as a means toward quality improvement are described. Using standardized reporting of both incidence and severity of post-operative complications, we first provide an overview of the burden and distribution that the two most pervasive post-operative AEs have on the thoracic surgical patient population, including prolonged alveolar air leak and atrial fibrillation (Chapter I and II). Next, we explore the inter-system reliability of reported AEs following thoracic surgery from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP), which is widely considered the most prominent surgical quality improvement effort, and the TM&M classification system in order to better understand to what extent the methods used to collect data may be impacting results (Chapter III). The disparity between the two systems and the duplicate participation indicates distinct value to the two quality reporting systems. An absence of evidence in the literature regarding individual surgeon outcome reporting and its impact on the quality of care prompted us to create risk-adjusted, surgeon-specific outcome reports to enable individualized performance measurement and feedback (Chapter IV). A priority for the division has been to ensure such measurement translates into reproducible improvements in surgical performance. To do so, we implemented complementary continuous quality improvement seminars to provide an additional forum for discussion regarding collective results, utilizing positive deviance, to unmask best performers as a catalyst for discussing practice measures to improve specific AEs. Lastly, an evolutionary understanding of the heterogeneity of TM&M data was considered as a critical next step to following improvements in care (Chapter V). Recognizing that software was necessary to efficiently record and review TM&M data, iterative development led to an evolution of a real-time, web-based, point-of-care Thoracic Surgery Quality monitoring, Information management, and Clinical documentation (TSQIC) software system. The TSQIC system has enabled bedside data recording and storage, and automated dynamic analysis and reporting of surgical volume and quality. We observe that measurement of TM&M data alone, while necessary, is not sufficient for quality improvement. We suggest that in addition to implementing a complementary point-of-care, interactive, web-based quality monitoring system, key factors for improving quality and patient safety include a combination of temporal analyses of AEs, effective surgeon-specific feedback mechanisms, actionable information based on best practice measures, standardization of case reviews, and a unit-based approach conducive of team-work and safety culture, led by open and collegial dialogue.