BACKGROUND: Implementation of best practices surgical checklists improves patient safety and outcomes. However, documenting performance of these practices can be challenging. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons developed a Best Practices for Rectal Cancer Checklist (RCC) to standardize and improve the quality of rectal cancer surgery. This study compared the degree to which synoptic (SR) and narrative (NR) operative reports document RCC items. METHODS: Two reviewers independently reviewed a cohort of prospectively collected SR for rectal cancer surgery and a case-matched historical cohort of NR. Reports were reviewed for documentation of performance of operative items on the RCC. Abstraction time and inter-rater agreement were also measured. RESULTS: SR scored significantly higher than NR on the overall checklist score (mean adjusted score ± standard deviation 12.4 ± 0.9 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9, maximum possible score 18, P < 0.001). Reviewers abstracted data significantly faster from SR. Inter-rater agreement between reviewers was high for both types of reports. CONCLUSIONS: SR were associated with reliable and more complete and reliable documentation of items on the RCC. Use of an SR system standardizes operative reporting, providing the opportunity to enhance checklist compliance, and enable timely feedback to improve surgical outcomes for rectal cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: Implementation of best practices surgical checklists improves patient safety and outcomes. However, documenting performance of these practices can be challenging. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons developed a Best Practices for Rectal Cancer Checklist (RCC) to standardize and improve the quality of rectal cancer surgery. This study compared the degree to which synoptic (SR) and narrative (NR) operative reports document RCC items. METHODS: Two reviewers independently reviewed a cohort of prospectively collected SR for rectal cancer surgery and a case-matched historical cohort of NR. Reports were reviewed for documentation of performance of operative items on the RCC. Abstraction time and inter-rater agreement were also measured. RESULTS: SR scored significantly higher than NR on the overall checklist score (mean adjusted score ± standard deviation 12.4 ± 0.9 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9, maximum possible score 18, P < 0.001). Reviewers abstracted data significantly faster from SR. Inter-rater agreement between reviewers was high for both types of reports. CONCLUSIONS: SR were associated with reliable and more complete and reliable documentation of items on the RCC. Use of an SR system standardizes operative reporting, providing the opportunity to enhance checklist compliance, and enable timely feedback to improve surgical outcomes for rectal cancerpatients.
Authors: Natalie Wiebe; Lucia Otero Varela; Daniel J Niven; Paul E Ronksley; Nicolas Iragorri; Hude Quan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Shannon E Stogryn; Krista Hardy; Michael J Mullan; Jason Park; Christopher Andrew; Ashley Vergis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Gary Gamme; Tyler Parrington; Edward Wiebe; Sunita Ghosh; Brendan Litt; David C Williams; Todd P W McMullen Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Garrett G R J Johnson; Harminder Singh; Ashley Vergis; Jason Park; Olivia Hershorn; David Hochman; Ramzi M Helewa Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Shonan Sho; Greg Yothers; Linda H Colangelo; Patricia A Ganz; Michael J O'Connell; Robert W Beart; Marian Hemmelgarn; Formosa C Chen; Clifford Y Ko; Marcia M Russell Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.412