ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2014
[Quality of documentation of intraoperative and postoperative complications : improvement of documentation for a nationwide quality assurance program and comparison with routine data].
Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of interventions to improve inpatient hospital documentation within electronic health records: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- [The validity of routine data on quality assurance: A qualitative systematic review].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2016Pooled it
- [Effects of statutory quality assurance in acute inpatient care].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Review
- Quality assurance in revision total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Quality assurance in primary total hip arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComplications after cholecystectomy are continuously documented in a nationwide database in Germany. Recent studies demonstrated a lack of reliability of these data. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of a control algorithm on documentation quality and the use of routine diagnosis coding as an additional validation instrument.
methodsCompleteness and correctness of the documentation of complications after cholecystectomy was compared over a time interval of 12 months before and after implementation of an algorithm for faster and more accurate documentation. Furthermore, the coding of all diagnoses was screened to identify intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The sensitivity of the documentation for complications improved from 46 % to 70 % (p = 0.05, specificity 98 % in both time intervals). A prolonged time interval of more than 6 weeks between patient discharge and documentation was associated with inferior data quality (incorrect documentation in 1.5 % versus 15 %, p < 0.05). The rate of case documentation within the 6 weeks after hospital discharge was clearly improved after implementation of the control algorithm. Sensitivity and specificity of screening for complications by evaluating routine diagnoses coding were 70 % and 85 %, respectively. The quality of documentation was improved by implementation of a simple memory algorithm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24499996What 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.