ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2024
Assessing the standard of emergency general surgical (EGS) operation notes in accordance with the Royal College of Surgeons guidelines.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2024. 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.
- FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK.Turkish journal of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Operation notes are important for care in surgical patients. The objectives of this study were to analyze the emergency general surgery (EGS) operation note documentation in accordance with the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) guidelines and to assess the impact of creating awareness of the guidelines and effect of a new proforma. Material and Methods: A retrospective review of 50 EGS operation notes was conducted between December 2019 and March 2020 and compared to RCSEng guidelines. Education was delivered on the importance of documentation in accordance with RCSEng guidelines. A new electronic proforma was introduced. A further 50 EGS operation notes were analysed between August 2020 and December 2020. Results: One hundred operation notes were reviewed, and each given a score out of 19. Our interventions showed significant improvement to the average score (15.64 vs 17.96; p <0.001). Within the second cycle, there was a statistically significance difference when comparing electronic to handwritten notes (18.55 vs 17.50; p= 0.001). Conclusion: Implementation of the new proforma showed improvement in operation note documentation when compared to the RCSEng standard. Therefore, this study emphasizes the need for surgeons to familiarize themselves with the current guidelines.
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.