Shannon E Stogryn1, Krista Hardy1, Michael J Mullan1, Jason Park1, Christopher Andrew1, Ashley Vergis2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. avergis@sbgh.mb.ca. 3. St. Boniface Hospital, Z3039-409 Tache Ave, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada. avergis@sbgh.mb.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Synoptic reporting (SR) is one solution to improve the quality of operative reports. However, SR has not been investigated in bariatric surgery despite an identified need by bariatric surgeons. SR for RYGB was developed using quality indicators (QIs) established by a national Delphi process. The objective of this study is to assess the completeness, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of synoptic versus narrative operative reports (NR) in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: A NR and SR were completed on 104 consecutive RYGBs. Two evaluators independently compared the reports to QIs. Completeness and accuracy measures were determined. Reliability was calculated using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Time to complete SR and NR was also compared. RESULTS: The mean completion rate of SR was 99.8% (±SD 0.98%) compared to 64.0% (±SD 6.15%) for NR (t = 57.9, p < 0.001). All subsections of SR were >99% complete. This was significantly higher than for NR (p < 0.001) except for small bowel division details (p = 0.530). Accuracy was significantly higher for SR than NR (94.2% ± SD 4.31% vs. 53.6% ± SD 9.82%, respectively, p < 0.001). Rater agreement was excellent for both SR (0.11, 95% LOA -0.53 to 0.75) and NR (-0.26, 95% LOA -4.85 to 4.33) (p = 0.242), where 0 denotes perfect agreement. SR completion times were significantly shorter than NR (3:55 min ± SD 1:26 min and 4:50 min ± SD 0:50 min, respectively, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The RYGB SR is superior to NR for completeness and accuracy. This platform is also both reliable and efficient. This SR should be incorporated into clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: Synoptic reporting (SR) is one solution to improve the quality of operative reports. However, SR has not been investigated in bariatric surgery despite an identified need by bariatric surgeons. SR for RYGB was developed using quality indicators (QIs) established by a national Delphi process. The objective of this study is to assess the completeness, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of synoptic versus narrative operative reports (NR) in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: A NR and SR were completed on 104 consecutive RYGBs. Two evaluators independently compared the reports to QIs. Completeness and accuracy measures were determined. Reliability was calculated using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Time to complete SR and NR was also compared. RESULTS: The mean completion rate of SR was 99.8% (±SD 0.98%) compared to 64.0% (±SD 6.15%) for NR (t = 57.9, p < 0.001). All subsections of SR were >99% complete. This was significantly higher than for NR (p < 0.001) except for small bowel division details (p = 0.530). Accuracy was significantly higher for SR than NR (94.2% ± SD 4.31% vs. 53.6% ± SD 9.82%, respectively, p < 0.001). Rater agreement was excellent for both SR (0.11, 95% LOA -0.53 to 0.75) and NR (-0.26, 95% LOA -4.85 to 4.33) (p = 0.242), where 0 denotes perfect agreement. SR completion times were significantly shorter than NR (3:55 min ± SD 1:26 min and 4:50 min ± SD 0:50 min, respectively, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The RYGB SR is superior to NR for completeness and accuracy. This platform is also both reliable and efficient. This SR should be incorporated into clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic health records; Gastric bypass; Medical records systems-computerized; Quality assurance-health care/standards
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
Authors: David A Cowan; Mandy B Sands; Susan M Rabizadeh; Charles S Amos; Carolyn Ford; Rachel Nussbaum; David Stein; Nanette J Liegeois Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Reagan L Maniar; David J Hochman; Debrah A Wirtzfeld; Andrew M McKay; Clifford S Yaffe; Benson Yip; Richard Silverman; Jason Park Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Darryl N Hoffer; Antonio Finelli; Raymond Chow; Justin Liu; Tran Truong; Kelly Lane; Sanoj Punnen; Jennifer J Knox; Laura Legere; Ghada Kurban; Brenda Gallie; Michael A S Jewett Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2012-01-02 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Arielle E Kanters; Joceline V Vu; Ari D Schuman; Inga Van Wieren; Ashley Duby; Karin M Hardiman; Samantha K Hendren Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Alain Tremblay; Nicole Ezer; Paul Burrowes; John Henry MacGregor; Andrew Lee; Gavin A Armstrong; Raoul Pereira; Michael Bristow; Jana L Taylor; Paul MacEachern; Niloofar Taghizadeh; Rommy Koetzler; Eric Bedard Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 2.795
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