Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39070441›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Improving the Quality and Standardization of Operative Notes in a Tertiary Regional ENT Department: A Closed-Loop Audit.

Mustafa Qasem, Omar Qasem, Nikoleta Skalidi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mustafa QasemOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, GBR.
Omar QasemOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Jordan Hospital, Amman, JOR.
Nikoleta SkalidiOtolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComprehensive and accurate documentation is paramount in ensuring patient safety, and continuity of care, and casts the foundation for auditing practice and creating research. Unfortunately, a lack of documentation has been reported globally. This study aims to challenge current practices and ensure high-quality documentation. METHODOLOGY: The study appraised 100 operation notes completed within a tertiary, regional ENT department against the published guidance. Following an inquiry into the findings, the operative note proformas were modified in alignment with the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) published standards for the quality of operative notes. A further 100 operation notes were audited. Rates of compliance before and post implementing the intervention were compared. Non-parametric data were analyzed using Fischer's exact test, with

resultsUpon auditing of operative note completeness against the set criteria, the use of a comprehensive operative note proforma significantly refined the quality of documentation and adherence to the published standards (

conclusionsThis study displayed the lack of adherence to the RCS standards about the quality of operative notes within our center. The adoption of a modified proforma which incorporates the 18 criteria defined by the RCS resulted in improved conformance to published standards and a higher quality of documentation. This study corroborates the RCS framework as an effective tool in recognizing deficient practices and areas of improvement. Through compliance with published standards, a higher quality of documentation is attained, contributing to patient safety, clear continued communication, and support of clinical governance.

Indexed as

auditentoperative notequality improvementsurgery

Identifiers

PMID39070441
PMCPMC11283855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.