ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Surgical Operative Notes at the Port Sudan Teaching Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Beyond the Scalpel: Improving Operative Note Quality in Gabeet Specialized Hospital, Sudan.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Improving the Quality of Surgical Operative Notes at Managil Teaching Hospital, Sudan: A Clinical Audit.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Implementation of a Standardized Surgical Operative Note: A Clinical Audit at Atbara Teaching Hospital.Cureus · 2025Article
- Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Surgical Operative Notes at Elobeid Teaching Hospital: A Two-Phase Audit.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Thorough and standardized documentation of operative notes is essential for effective communication, patient safety, legal protection, and the continuity of care. However, in many hospitals in Sudan, surgeons often use non-standardized methods, resulting in inconsistent and incomplete records. This study evaluates the quality of operative notes at the Port Sudan Teaching Hospital using the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) guidelines, aiming to improve compliance and documentation practices. Methods A clinical audit was conducted in two cycles at the General Surgery Department. The first cycle, a retrospective review of 50 surgical notes, was carried out over one week in July 2024. The second cycle conducted prospectively on another 50 notes throughout September 2024, involved the implementation of an improved proforma and staff training. Data were collected using a standardized checklist aligned with Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) guidelines, covering 18 documentation criteria. Results were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States) to assess improvements in compliance. Results The compliance with documentation standards increased significantly from 51.9% in the first cycle to 82.1% in the second cycle. Notable improvements were observed in recording operative findings (17, 34%), complications (34, 68%), and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis (47, 94%). Despite the overall progress, modest improvements were noted in documenting the anesthetist's name (2.5, 5%) and the surgeon's signature (3, 6%). These findings underscore the positive impact of structured proformas and targeted staff training. Conclusion The implementation of standardized documentation tools and staff training significantly improved the quality of surgical operative notes at the Port Sudan Teaching Hospital. While notable progress was achieved, continued efforts, including digital solutions and regular audits, are needed to sustain these improvements and promote patient safety.
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.