Literature DB >> 20855757

Operative reports: form and function.

Lygia Stewart1, John G Hunter, Alberto Wetter, Brian Chin, Lawrence W Way.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Little is known about how closely operative reports reflect what was actually performed during an operation, nor has the construction of operative reports been adequately studied with the aims of clarifying the objectives of those reports and improving their efficacy. We hypothesized that if more attention is paid to the objectives of operative reports, their content will more predictably contain the most relevant information, which might channel thinking in beneficial directions during performance of the operation.
DESIGN: Multivariate analysis of 250 laparoscopic cholecystectomy operative reports (125 uncomplicated and 125 with bile duct injury).
SETTING: Academic research. PARTICIPANTS: University (105 cases) and community (145 cases) hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variations in content and design of operative reports. Cognitive task analysis of laparoscopic cholecystectomy was conducted, and a model operative report was generated and compared with the actual operative reports.
RESULTS: Descriptions of key elements in adequate dissection of the Calot triangle were present in 24.8% and 0.0% of operative reports from uncomplicated and bile duct injury cases, respectively. Thorough dissection of the Calot triangle, identification of the cystic duct-infundibulum junction, and lateral retraction of the infundibulum correlated with uncomplicated cases, while irregular cues (eg, perceived anatomic or other deviations) correlated with bile duct injury cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Current practice generates operative reports that vary widely in content and too often omit important elements. This research suggests that the construction of operative reports should be constrained such that the reports routinely include the fundamental goals of the operation and what was performed to meet them. Cognitive task analysis is based on the ways the mind controls the performance of tasks; it is an excellent method for determining the extra content needed in operative reports. The resulting designs should also serve as mental guidelines to facilitate learning and to enhance the safety of the operation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20855757     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  10 in total

1.  A smart decision: smartphone use for operative data collection in arthroscopic shoulder instability surgery.

Authors:  Jill Mohr; Gregory J Strnad; Lutul Farrow; Kate Heinlein; Carolyn M Hettrich; Morgan H Jones; Anthony Miniaci; Eric Ricchetti; James Rosneck; Mark Schickendantz; Paul Saluan; Jose F Vega; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  A Systematic Review on the Synoptic Operative Report Versus the Narrative Operative Report in Surgery.

Authors:  Özgür Eryigit; Floyd W van de Graaf; Johan F Lange
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Surgical procedural map scoring for decision-making in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Daniel A Hashimoto; C Gustaf Axelsson; Cara B Jones; Roy Phitayakorn; Emil Petrusa; Sophia K McKinley; Denise Gee; Carla Pugh
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Quality of inguinal hernia operative reports: room for improvement.

Authors:  Grace W Ma; Amandeep Pooni; Shawn S Forbes; Cagla Eskicioglu; Emily Pearsall; Fred D Brenneman; Robin S McLeod
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.089

5.  Differences between attendings' and residents' operative notes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Linda S G L Wauben; Richard H M Goossens; Johan F Lange
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Quality of narrative operative reports in pancreatic surgery.

Authors:  Meagan E Wiebe; Lakhbir Sandhu; Julie L Takata; Erin D Kennedy; Nancy N Baxter; Anna R Gagliardi; David R Urbach; Alice C Wei
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  A 10-Item Checklist Improves Reporting of Critical Procedural Elements during Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor.

Authors:  Christopher Anderson; Ryan Weber; Darshan Patel; William Lowrance; Adam Mellis; Michael Cookson; Maximilian Lang; Daniel Barocas; Sam Chang; Elizabeth Newberger; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Alon Z Weizer; Cheryl T Lee; Bruce R Kava; Max Jackson; Anoop Meraney; Daniel Sjoberg; Bernard Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Machele Donat; Harry Herr
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Documenting correct assessment of biliary anatomy during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  K T Buddingh; A N Morks; H O ten Cate Hoedemaker; C B Blaauw; G M van Dam; R J Ploeg; H S Hofker; V B Nieuwenhuijs
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Adoption of universal culture of safety in cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Vishal Gupta; Gaurav Jain
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-02-27

10.  It's time for a minimum synoptic operation template in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Niall O'Connor; Michael Sugrue; Conor Melly; Gearoid McGeehan; Magda Bucholc; Aileen Crawford; Paul O'Connor; Fikri Abu-Zidan; Imtiaz Wani; Zsolt J Balogh; Vishal G Shelat; Giovanni D Tebala; Belinda De Simone; Hani O Eid; Mircea Chirica; Gustavo P Fraga; Salomone Di Saverio; Edoardo Picetti; Luigi Bonavina; Marco Ceresoli; Andreas Fette; Boris Sakakushe; Emmanouil Pikoulis; Raul Coimbra; Richard Ten Broek; Andreas Hecker; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrey Litvin; Philip Stahel; Edward Tan; Kaoru Koike; Fausto Catena; Michele Pisano; Federico Coccolini; Alison Johnston
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 5.469

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.