ArticleCureus2025
Implementation of a Standardized Surgical Operative Note: A Clinical Audit at Atbara Teaching Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Article
- 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimHigh-quality surgical operation notes are essential for patient safety, clinical communication, and medicolegal accountability. In low-resource settings like Sudan, inconsistent and incomplete documentation remains a challenge. This study aimed to evaluate and improve the quality of surgical operation notes at the Atbara Teaching Hospital using a closed-loop clinical audit.
methodsA two-cycle audit was conducted using a standardized checklist based on the guidelines of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Fifty surgical notes were reviewed in each cycle. Following the baseline assessment, interventions including the implementation of a structured proforma and staff education sessions were introduced. A re-audit was then performed to assess the impact of these measures.
resultsSignificant improvements were observed across most documentation parameters. Patient identification improved from 2% to 100% (p<0.0001), preoperative diagnosis from 8% to 93.5% (p<0.0001), and postoperative care instructions from 0% to 76.1% (p<0.0001). Documentation of anticipated blood loss, antibiotic prophylaxis, and closure techniques also showed statistically significant enhancements. However, gaps remained in areas, such as complication reporting and anesthetist details.
conclusionStructured interventions, including standardized templates and targeted training, substantially improved the completeness and quality of surgical operation notes. Ongoing audits, reinforced education, and potential integration of electronic records are recommended to sustain and build upon these improvements, particularly in resource-limited settings.
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.