Arielle E Kanters1, Joceline V Vu2, Ari D Schuman3, Inga Van Wieren3, Ashley Duby3, Karin M Hardiman4, Samantha K Hendren2. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: akanters@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Synoptic operative reporting has been shown to improve completeness and consistency in surgical documentation. We sought to determine whether operative reports contain the key elements recommended by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. METHODS: Rectal cancer operative reports from June-December 2018 were submitted from ten hospitals in Michigan. These reports were analyzed to identify key elements in the synoptic operative template and assessed for completeness. RESULTS: In total, 110 operative reports were reviewed. Thirty-one (28%) reports contained all 24 elements; all of these reports used a synoptic template. Overall, 62 (56%) reports used a synoptic template and 48 (44%) did not. Using a synoptic template significantly improved documentation, as these reports contained 92% of required elements, compared to 39% for narrative reports (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: Narrative operative reports inconsistently document rectal cancer resection. This study provides evidence that synoptic reporting will improve quality of documentation for rectal cancer surgery.
INTRODUCTION: Synoptic operative reporting has been shown to improve completeness and consistency in surgical documentation. We sought to determine whether operative reports contain the key elements recommended by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. METHODS:Rectal cancer operative reports from June-December 2018 were submitted from ten hospitals in Michigan. These reports were analyzed to identify key elements in the synoptic operative template and assessed for completeness. RESULTS: In total, 110 operative reports were reviewed. Thirty-one (28%) reports contained all 24 elements; all of these reports used a synoptic template. Overall, 62 (56%) reports used a synoptic template and 48 (44%) did not. Using a synoptic template significantly improved documentation, as these reports contained 92% of required elements, compared to 39% for narrative reports (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: Narrative operative reports inconsistently document rectal cancer resection. This study provides evidence that synoptic reporting will improve quality of documentation for rectal cancer surgery.
Authors: Aaron S Rickles; David W Dietz; George J Chang; Steven D Wexner; Mariana E Berho; Feza H Remzi; Frederick L Greene; James W Fleshman; Maher A Abbas; Walter Peters; Katia Noyes; John R T Monson; Fergal J Fleming Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Joceline V Vu; Stacey D Collins; Elizabeth Seese; Samantha Hendren; Michael J Englesbe; Darrell A Campbell; Greta L Krapohl Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-10-28 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Eduardo García-Granero; Omar Faiz; Elena Muñoz; Blas Flor; Samuel Navarro; Carmen Faus; Stephannie Anne García-Botello; Salvador Lledó; Andrés Cervantes Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Justin T Brady; Zhaomin Xu; Kelly B Scarberry; Amin Saad; Fergal J Fleming; Feza H Remzi; Steven D Wexner; David P Winchester; John R T Monson; Lawrence Lee; David W Dietz Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: John R T Monson; Christian P Probst; Steven D Wexner; Feza H Remzi; James W Fleshman; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; George J Chang; David W Dietz Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Shanley B Deal; Michael I D'Angelica; William G Hawkins; Michael Pucci; Michael Ujiki; L Michael Brunt; Steven Wexner; Adnan A Alseidi Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Phil Quirke; Robert Steele; John Monson; Robert Grieve; Subhash Khanna; Jean Couture; Chris O'Callaghan; Arthur Sun Myint; Eric Bessell; Lindsay C Thompson; Mahesh Parmar; Richard J Stephens; David Sebag-Montefiore Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rubab F Malik; Alina Hasanain; Kelly J Lafaro; Jin He; Amol K Narang; Elliot K Fishman; Atif Zaheer Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-11-20
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: Lia D Delaney; Kerry M Lindquist; Ryan Howard; Anne P Ehlers; C Ann Vitous; Michael Englesbe; Justin B Dimick; Dana A Telem Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.453