Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for database-related research and quality control

Surgery

Volumn 141, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 708-714

  Harvey, A ^a   Zhang, H ^b   Nixon, J ^a   Brown, C J ^b  

^a Peter Lougheed Center   (Canada)

^b ST PAUL S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHOLECYSTECTOMY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NARRATIVE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDIZATION;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHOLECYSTECTOMY, LAPAROSCOPIC; DATA COLLECTION; DATABASES; DOCUMENTATION; HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 34249810674     PISSN: 00396060     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.01.022     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Stanley-Brown E.G. How to dictate operative notes. Resid Staff Physician 29 (1983) 109-110
2. Khuri S.F. The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery 138 (2005) 837-843
3. Khuri S.F., et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 228 (1998) 491-507
4. Birkmeyer J.D., et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 349 (2003) 2117-2127
5. Edhemovic I., Temple W.J., de Gara C.J., and Stuart G.C. The computer synoptic operative report-a leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 11 (2004) 941-947
6. Warsi A.A., White S., and McCulloch P. Completeness of data entry in three cancer surgery databases. Eur J Surg Oncol 28 (2002) 850-856
7. van Walraven C., Laupacis A., Seth R., and Wells G. Dictated versus database-generated discharge summaries: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ 160 (1999) 319-326
8. Grogan E.L., et al. Improving documentation of patient acuity level using a progress note template. J Am Coll Surg 199 (2004) 468-475
9. Marill K.A., et al. Prospective, randomized trial of template-assisted versus undirected written recording of physician records in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 33 (1999) 500-509
10. DeOrio J.K. Surgical templates for orthopedic operative reports. Orthopedics 25 (2002) 639-642
11. Gadacz T.R. U.S. experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 165 (1993) 450-454
12. Hannan E.L., Imperato P.J., Nenner R.P., and Starr H. Laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy in New York State: mortality, complications, and choice of procedure. Surgery 125 (1999) 223-231
13. Kumar V., and Pande G.K. Complications of cholecystectomy in the era of laparoscopic surgery. Trop Gastroenterol 22 (2001) 72-79
14. Lau H., and Brooks D.C. Contemporary outcomes of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a major teaching hospital. World J Surg 26 (2002) 1117-1121
15. Matthews B.D., and Williams G.B. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an academic hospital: evaluation of changes in perioperative outcomes. JSLS 3 (1999) 9-17
16. Shea J.A., et al. Mortality and complications associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 224 (1996) 609-620
17. Shea J.A., et al. Indications for and outcomes of cholecystectomy: a comparison of the pre and postlaparoscopic eras. Ann Surg 227 (1998) 343-350
18. Zacks S.L., Sandler R.S., Rutledge R., and Brown Jr. R.S. A population-based cohort study comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open cholecystectomy. Am J Gastroenterol 97 (2002) 334-340
19. Christiaens M.R., van der S.E., and Vantongelen K. More detailed documentation of operative procedures in breast conserving treatment: what good will it do us?. Eur J Surg Oncol 22 (1996) 326-330
20. Christiaens M.R., et al. Comparison of the surgical procedures for breast conserving treatment of early breast cancer in seven EORTC centres. Eur J Cancer 32A (1996) 1866-1875
21. Scherer R., et al. Comparison of information obtained by operative note abstraction with that recorded on a standardized data collection form. Surgery 133 (2003) 324-330
22. Lapointe L., and Rivard S. Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies. CMAJ 174 (2006) 1573-1578
23. Zitner D. Physicians will happily adopt information technology. CMAJ 174 (2006) 1583-1584
24. Srigley J.R. Key issues in handling and reporting radical prostatectomy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130 (2006) 303-317
25. Zhang P., and Brooks J.S. Modern pathological evaluation of soft tissue sarcoma specimens and its potential role in soft tissue sarcoma research. Curr Treat Options Oncol 5 (2004) 441-450
26. Thompson J.F., and Scolyer R.A. Cooperation between surgical oncologists and pathologists: a key element of multidisciplinary care for patients with cancer. Pathology 36 (2004) 496-503
27. Hammond E.H., and Flinner R.L. Clinically relevant breast cancer reporting: using process measures to improve anatomic pathology reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 121 (1997) 1171-1175