Özgür Eryigit1, Floyd W van de Graaf2, Johan F Lange2. 1. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, H-173, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. o.eryigit@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, H-173, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proper documentation is an essential part of patient safety and quality of care in the surgical field. Surgical procedures are traditionally documented in narrative operative reports which are subjective by nature and often lack essential information. This systematic review will analyze the added value of the newly emerged synoptic reporting technique in the surgical setting. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to compare the completeness and the user-friendliness of the synoptic operative report to the narrative operative report. A literature search was performed in EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for studies published up to April 6, 2018. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized for the risk of bias assessment of the included articles. PROSPERO registration number was: CRD42018093770. RESULTS: Overall and subsection completion of the operative report was higher in the synoptic operative report. The time until completion of the operative report and the data extraction time were shorter in the synoptic report. One exception was the specific details section concerning the operative procedure, as this was generally reported more frequently in the narrative report. The use of mandatory fields in the synoptic report resulted in more completely reported operative outcomes with completion percentages close to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The synoptic operative report generally demonstrated a higher completion rate and a much lower time until completion compared to the traditional narrative operative report. A hybrid approach to the synoptic operative report will potentially yield better completion rates and higher physician satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: Proper documentation is an essential part of patient safety and quality of care in the surgical field. Surgical procedures are traditionally documented in narrative operative reports which are subjective by nature and often lack essential information. This systematic review will analyze the added value of the newly emerged synoptic reporting technique in the surgical setting. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to compare the completeness and the user-friendliness of the synoptic operative report to the narrative operative report. A literature search was performed in EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar for studies published up to April 6, 2018. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was utilized for the risk of bias assessment of the included articles. PROSPERO registration number was: CRD42018093770. RESULTS: Overall and subsection completion of the operative report was higher in the synoptic operative report. The time until completion of the operative report and the data extraction time were shorter in the synoptic report. One exception was the specific details section concerning the operative procedure, as this was generally reported more frequently in the narrative report. The use of mandatory fields in the synoptic report resulted in more completely reported operative outcomes with completion percentages close to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The synoptic operative report generally demonstrated a higher completion rate and a much lower time until completion compared to the traditional narrative operative report. A hybrid approach to the synoptic operative report will potentially yield better completion rates and higher physician satisfaction.
Authors: Alex B Haynes; Thomas G Weiser; William R Berry; Stuart R Lipsitz; Abdel-Hadi S Breizat; E Patchen Dellinger; Teodoro Herbosa; Sudhir Joseph; Pascience L Kibatala; Marie Carmela M Lapitan; Alan F Merry; Krishna Moorthy; Richard K Reznick; Bryce Taylor; Atul A Gawande Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eric L Grogan; Theodore Speroff; Stephen A Deppen; Christianne L Roumie; Tom A Elasy; Robert S Dittus; S Trent Rosenbloom; Michael D Holzman Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Özgür Eryigit; Floyd W van de Graaf; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Meindert N Sosef; Eelco J R de Graaf; Anand G Menon; Marilyne M Lange; Johan F Lange Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Jacqueline M Soegaard Ballester; Kristin E Goodsell; Jae P Ermer; Giorgos C Karakousis; John T Miura; Nicole M Saur; Najjia N Mahmoud; Ari Brooks; Julia C Tchou; Peter E Gabriel; Lawrence N Shulman; Heather Wachtel Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 5.344
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
Authors: M Berlet; T Vogel; D Ostler; T Czempiel; M Kähler; S Brunner; H Feussner; D Wilhelm; M Kranzfelder Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2022-05-28 Impact factor: 3.421