Quality of inguinal hernia operative reports: Room for improvement

Canadian Journal of Surgery

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 393-397

  Ma, Grace W ^a   Pooni, Amandeep ^a   Forbes, Shawn S ^a   Eskicioglu, Cagla ^a   Pearsall, Emily ^b,c   Brenneman, Fred D ^a,d   McLeod, Robin S ^a,b,c,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c Zane Cohen Digestive Diseases Clinical Research Center   (Canada)

^d SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; FEMALE; HUMAN; INGUINAL HERNIA; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; RESEARCH; STANDARD; HERNIA, INGUINAL; STANDARDS;

CHECKLIST; FEMALE; HERNIA, INGUINAL; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 84893076546     PISSN: 0008428X     EISSN: 14882310     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cjs.017412     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 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;146:1090-8.
2. Cowan DA, Sands MB, Rabizadeh SM, et al. Electronic templates versus dictation for the completion of Mohs micrographic surgery operative notes. Dermatol Surg 2007;33:588-95.
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;11:941-7.
4. Mack LA, Dabbs K, Temple WJ. Synoptic operative record for point of care outcomes: a leap forward in knowledge translation. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010;36(Suppl 1):S44-9.
5. 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;211:308-15.
6. Stewart L, Hunter JG, Wetter A, et al. Operative reports: form and function. Arch Surg 2010;145:865-71.
7. Adams DC, Bristol JB, Poskitt KR. Surgical discharge summaries: improving the record. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993;75:96-9.
8. Chan NG, Duggal A, Weir MM, et al. Pathological reporting of colo rectal cancer specimens: a retrospective survey in an academic Canadian pathology department. Can J Surg 2008;51:284-8.
9. Fielstein EM, Brown SH, McBrine CS, et al. The effect of standardized, computer-guided templates on quality of VA disability exams. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006:249-53.
10. Gupta S, Patel J, McEnery K, et al. Early experience using an online reporting system for interventional radiology procedure-related complications integrated with a digital dictation system. J Digit Imaging 2011;24:672-9.
11. Harvey A, Zhang H, Nixon J, et al. Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for databaserelated research and quality control. Surgery 2007;141:708-14.
12. Laflamme MR, Dexter PR, Graham MF, et al. Efficiency, comprehensiveness and cost-effectiveness when comparing dictation and electronic templates for operative reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005:425-9.
13. Lissauer T, Paterson CM, Simons A, et al. Evaluation of computer generated neonatal discharge summaries. Arch Dis Child 1991;66:433-436.
14. Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R. What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011;135:1471-5.
15. Srigley JR, McGowan T, Maclean A, et al. Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: a population-based approach. J Surg Oncol 2009;99:517-24.
16. van Walraven C, Laupacis A, Seth R, et al. Dictated versus databasegenerated discharge summaries: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ 1999;160:319-26.
17. Flynn MB, Allen DA. The operative note as billing documentation: a preliminary report. Am Surg 2004;70:570-4, discussion 574-5.
18. Cohen MM, Ammon AA. A solution to the problem of undictated operative reports by residents. Am J Surg 1998;176:475-80.
19. Novitsky YW, Sing RF, Kercher KW, et al. Prospective, blinded evalu ation of accuracy of operative reports dictated by surgical residents. Am Surg 2005;71:627-31, discussion 631-2.
20. Gur I, Gur D, Recabaren JA. The computerized synoptic operative report: a novel tool in surgical residency education. Arch Surg 2012;147:71-4.
21. Mack LA, Bathe OF, Hebert MA, et al. Opening the black box of cancer surgery quality: WebSMR and the Alberta experience. J Surg Oncol 2009;99:525-30.