ArticleCureus2023
Enhancing Documentation Precision in Ophthalmic Surgery: A Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Document Improvement in Surgical Residency Training.Advances in health information science and practice · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Effective clinical documentation, particularly operative notes, is essential for maintaining healthcare standards and fostering interdisciplinary communication. This study focuses on improving the quality of ophthalmic operative notes by adopting the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) guidelines for good surgical practice. Methodology A retrospective cross-sectional audit at Khyber Teaching Hospital, Pakistan, assessed 138 operative notes against the RCS criteria. After an educational session and the placement of memory aids in operation theaters, a re-audit of 125 notes was conducted. Parameters were selectively applied based on relevance to specific cases, and omissions were discussed with the local ethical committee. Results The initial audit revealed deficiencies in 10 critical areas, with only three parameters exceeding 85% accuracy. The re-audit showed significant improvement across these parameters, achieving documentation of 85.3% of all criteria. Paired t-test results indicated a substantial difference in documentation quality before and after interventions. Conclusions A combined strategy involving surgeon education, memory aids, and adherence to established standards significantly enhances operative note quality. The study underscores the importance of sustained reinforcement mechanisms for continuous improvements in documentation practices.
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.