Surgeon-specific outcome monitoring has become increasingly prevalent over the last 3 decades. The New Zealand Orthopaedic Association monitors individual surgeon performance through 2 mechanisms: arthroplasty revision rates derived from the New Zealand Joint Registry and a practice visit program. Despite remaining confidential, surgeon-level outcome reporting remains contentious. The purpose of this survey was to evaluate the opinions of hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons in New Zealand on the perceived importance of outcome monitoring, current methods used to evaluate surgeon-specific outcomes, and potential improvements identified through literature review and discussion with other registries. The survey consisted of 9 questions on surgeon-specific outcome reporting, using a five-point Likert scale, and 5 demographic questions. It was distributed to all current hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons. There were 151 hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons who completed the survey, a response rate of 50%. Respondents agreed that monitoring arthroplasty outcomes is important and that revision rates are an acceptable measure of performance. Reporting risk-adjusted revision rates and more recent timeframes were supported, as was including patient-reported outcomes when monitoring performance. Surgeons did not support public reporting of surgeon-level or hospital-level outcomes. The findings of this survey support the use of revision rates to confidentially monitor surgeon-level arthroplasty outcomes and suggest that concurrent use of patient-reported outcome measures would be acceptable.