Completeness of dictated operative reports in breast cancer - The case for synoptic reporting

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 79-83

  Donahoe, Laura ^a   Bennett, Sean ^a   Temple, Walley ^b   Hilchie Pye, Andrea ^a   Dabbs, Kelly ^c   Macintosh, Ethel ^d   Porter, Geoff ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Documentation; Surgery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AXILLARY LYMPH NODE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SURGERY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LYMPH NODE DISSECTION; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NERVE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY; SYNOPTIC REPORTING;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CANADA; FEMALE; HUMANS; LYMPH NODE EXCISION; MAMMAPLASTY; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL RECORDS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY;

EID: 84861960578     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23031     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Canadian Cancer Society: 2010. Breast Cancer Statistics. Available http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/About%20cancer/Cancer%20statistics/ Stats%20at%20a%20glance/Breast%20cancer.aspx?sc-lang=en [accessed February 5, 2011].
2. Laflamme MR, Dexter PR, Graham MF, et al.: Efficiency, comprehensiveness and cost-effectiveness when comparing dictation and electronic templates for operative reports. AMIA Symp Proc 2005;2005:425-429.
3. Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ, et al.: The computer synoptic operative report - A leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:941-947. (Pubitemid 40486681)
4. Chambers AJ, Pasieka JL, Temple WJ: Improvement in the accuracy of reporting key prognostic and anatomic findings during thyroidectomy by using a novel Web-based synoptic operative reporting system. Surgery 2009;146:1090-1098.
5. Wilkinson NW, Shahryarinejad A, Winston JS, et al.: Concordance with breast cancer pathology reporting guidelines. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:38-43. (Pubitemid 36070992)
6. Park J, Pillarisetty VG, Brennan MF, et al.: Electronic synoptic operative reporting: Assessing the reliability and completeness of synoptic reports for pancreatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 2010;211:308-315.
7. Temple WJ, Francis WP, Tamano E, et al.: Synoptic surgical reporting for breast cancer surgery: An innovation in knowledge translation. Am J Surg 2010;199:770-775.
8. Eichholz AC, Van Voorhis BJ, Sorosky JI, et al.: Operative note dictation: Should it be taught routinely in residency programs? Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:342-346.
9. Harvey A, Zhang H, Nixon J, et al.: Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for database-related research and quality control. Surgery 2007;141:708-714. (Pubitemid 46856571)
10. Christiaens MR, van der Schueren E, Vantongelen K: More detailed documentation of operative procedures in breast conserving treatment: What good will it do us? Eur J Surg Oncol 1996;22:326-330. (Pubitemid 26312869)
11. Srigley JR, McGowan T, MacLean A, et al.: Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009;99:517-524.
12. Porter GA, MacMulkin H: Practice patterns in breast cancer surgery: A Canadian perspective. World J Surg 2004;28:80-86. (Pubitemid 38095799)
13. Park J, Pillarisetty VG, Brennan MF, et al.: Electronic synoptic operative reporting: Assessing the reliability and completeness of synoptic reports for pancreatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 2011;211:308-315.
14. Cancer Surgery Alberta: 2011. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Available http://www.cancersurgeryalberta.ca/canadian-partnership-against- cancer-cpac [accessed February 5, 2011].