Literature DB >> 23604304

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

Linda S G L Wauben1, Richard H M Goossens, Johan F Lange.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Operative notes are the gold standard for detecting adverse events and near misses and form the basis for scientific research. In order to guarantee safe patient care, operative notes must be objective, complete, and accurate. This study explores the current routine of note writing for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and the differences between the notes of attendings and residents.
METHODS: Attendings and residents were sent a DVD with footage of three LCs and were asked to "write" the corresponding notes and to complete a questionnaire. Dictation tapes were transcribed and items in the notes were analyzed for each procedure ("item described" or "item not described"). Fisher's exact tests were performed using SPSS 16.0 for Mac.
RESULTS: Thirteen sets of typewritten notes and 10 dictation tapes were returned. The results of the questionnaire showed that 16 of the 23 sets of notes were dictated. Eight participants found the current system for generating notes inadequate. 14 items (31 %) were included more often in the attendings' notes and 25 items (56 %) were included more often in the residents' notes. Overall, residents significantly more often described the location of the epigastric trocar (P = 0.018), the size of both working trocars (P = 0.019), the opening of the peritoneal envelope (P = 0.002), Critical View of Safety reached (P = 0.002), and the location for removing the gallbladder (P = 0.019). With the exception of "gallbladder perforation" (20 of 21 notes), complications were underreported.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study residents described more items than attendings. All notes lacked information concerning complications in the procedure, which makes the notes subjective and incomplete. A procedure-specific template or black-box-based operative notes based on established guidelines could improve the quality of the notes of both attendings and residents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23604304     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2050-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  29 in total

1.  The dictated operative note: important but is it being taught?

Authors:  R A Moore
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Teaching operative dictation. A survey of obstetrics/gynecology residency program directors.

Authors:  Andrew W Menzin; Mark Spitzer
Journal:  J Reprod Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 0.142

3.  Prospective, blinded evaluation of accuracy of operative reports dictated by surgical residents.

Authors:  Yuri W Novitsky; Ronald F Sing; Kent W Kercher; Martha L Griffo; Brent D Matthews; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 0.688

4.  How much do standardized forms improve the documentation of quality of care?

Authors:  Janak A Parikh; Irina Yermilov; Sushma Jain; Marcia L McGory; Clifford Y Ko; Melinda A Maggard
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  The quality of operative notes at a general surgery unit.

Authors:  A Rogers; M Bunting; A Atherstone
Journal:  S Afr Med J       Date:  2008-09

6.  An audit of operative notes: facts and ways to improve.

Authors:  Liviu P Lefter; Stuart R Walker; Fleur Dewhurst; R W L Turner
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 1.872

7.  A solution to the problem of undictated operative reports by residents.

Authors:  M M Cohen; A A Ammon
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 8.  A systems analysis approach to medical error.

Authors:  L L Leape
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Comparison of information obtained by operative note abstraction with that recorded on a standardized data collection form.

Authors:  Roberta Scherer; Qi Zhu; Patricia Langenberg; Steven Feldon; Shalom Kelman; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Quality of clinical case note entries: how good are we at achieving set standards?

Authors:  G D Osborn; H Pike; M Smith; R Winter; E Vaughan-Williams
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.891

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Population-Based Studies Should not be Used to Justify a Policy of Routine Cholangiography to Prevent Major Bile Duct Injury During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Authors:  A Peter Wysocki
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.