Synoptic operative reports enhance documentation of best practices for rectal cancer

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 112, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 555-560

  Maniar, Reagan L ^a   Sytnik, Peter ^a   Wirtzfeld, Debrah A ^a   Hochman, David J ^a   McKay, Andrew M ^a   Yip, Benson ^a   Hebbard, Pamela C ^a   Park, Jason ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

colorectal surgery; operative reports; quality of health care; rectal neoplasms; safety checklists; synoptic reports

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SURGERY; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NARRATIVE; NARRATIVE OPERATIVE REPORT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SAFETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; RECTAL CANCER CHECKLIST; RECTUM CANCER; RECTUM SURGERY; STANDARDIZATION; SURGICAL PATIENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYNOPTIC OPERATIVE REPORT; TIME TO TREATMENT; DOCUMENTATION; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROCEDURES; RECTAL NEOPLASMS; STANDARDS;

CHECKLIST; DATA COLLECTION; DOCUMENTATION; HUMANS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; RECTAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84945460501     PISSN: 00224790     EISSN: 10969098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jso.24039     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bergs J, Hellings J, Cleemput I, et al.,: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist on postoperative complications. Br J Surg 2014; 101: 150-158.
2. Borchard A, Schwappach DLB, Barbir A, et al.,: A systematic review of the effectiveness, compliance, and critical factors for implementation of safety checklists in surgery. Ann Surg 2012; 256: 925-933.
3. De Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RMPH, et al.,: Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1928-1937.
4. ASCRS Quality Assessment and Safety Committee. Available at: http://www.fascrs.org/physicians/Quality-Assessment-and-Safety/. Accessed August 4, 2014.
5. Maniar RL, Hochman DJ, Wirtzfeld DA, et al.,: Documentation of quality of care data for colon cancer surgery: Comparison of synoptic and dictated operative reports. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21: 3592-3597.
6. 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.
7. Elit L, Bondy S, Chen Z, et al.,: The quality of the operative report for women with ovarian cancer in Ontario. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006; 28: 892-897.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Scherer R, Zhu Q, Langenberg P, et al.,: Comparison of information obtained by operative note abstraction with that recorded on a standardized data collection form. Surgery 2003; 133: 324-330.
12. Parikh JA, Yermilov I, Jain S, et al.,: How much do standardized forms improve the documentation of quality of care? J Surg Res 2007; 143: 158-163.
13. Wiebe ME, Sandhu L, Takata JL, et al.,: Quality of narrative operative reports in pancreatic surgery. Can J Surg 2013; 56: E121-E127.
14. Donahoe L, Bennett S, Temple W, et al.,: Completeness of dictated operative reports in breast cancer-The case for synoptic reporting. J Surg Oncol 2012; 106: 79-83.
15. 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: 525-530.
16. Bland JM, Altman D,: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 327: 307-310.
17. Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL, et al.,: Quality improvement in surgery: The American college of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program approach. Adv Surg 2010; 44: 251-267.