ArticleEye (London, England)2011
Revalidation and electronic cataract surgery audit: a Scottish survey on current practice and opinion.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research priorities in light of current trends in microsurgical training: revalidation, simulation, cross-training, and standardisation.Archives of plastic surgery · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine current knowledge and opinion on revalidation, and methods of cataract surgery audit in Scotland and to outline the current and future possibilities for electronic cataract surgery audit.
methodsIn 2010 we conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, Scottish-wide survey on revalidation knowledge and opinion, and cataract audit practice among all senior NHS ophthalmologists. Results were anonymised and recorded manually for analysis.
resultsIn all, 61% of the ophthalmologists surveyed took part. Only 33% felt ready to take part in revalidation, whereas 76% felt they did not have adequate information about the process. Also, 71% did not feel revalidation would improve patient care, but 85% agreed that cataract surgery audit is essential for ophthalmic practice. In addition, 91% audit their cataract outcomes; 52% do so continuously. Further, 63% audit their subspecialist surgical results. Only 25% audit their cataract surgery practice electronically, and only 12% collect clinical data using a hospital PAS system. Funding and system incompatibility were the main reasons cited for the lack of electronic audit setup. Currently, eight separate hospital IT patient administration systems are used across 14 health boards in Scotland.
conclusionRevalidation is set to commence in 2012. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists will use cataract outcome audit as a tool to ensure surgical competency for the process. Retrospective manual auditing of cataract outcome is time consuming, and can be avoided with an electronic system. Scottish ophthalmologists view revalidation with scepticism and appear to have inadequate knowledge of the process. However, they strongly agree with the concept of cataract surgery audit. The existing and future electronic applications that may support surgical audit are commercial electronic records, web-based applications, centrally funded software applications, and robust NHS connections between community and hospital.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.