ArticleCureus2025
Assessing the Quality of Operative Notes in the Orthopedic Surgery Department at Gezira Traumatology Center, Sudan, in Accordance With the Royal College of Surgeons Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-quality operative notes are crucial for patient safety, continuity of care, and medico-legal protection. Despite established Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) guidelines, audits globally reveal persistent deficiencies in surgical documentation. This study assessed the quality of operative notes in the Orthopedic Surgery Department at Gezira Traumatology Center, Wad Madani Teaching Hospital, Sudan, and evaluated the impact of targeted interventions.
methodsA clinical audit was conducted in two cycles (in July 2023 and then three months post-intervention). In the first cycle, 23 randomly selected orthopedic operative notes were retrospectively audited against 14 RCS documentation parameters. Root cause analysis identified key deficiencies. A multi-faceted intervention was implemented, including staff education, a standardized RCS-aligned template, visual reminders, and a feedback mechanism. The second cycle re-audited 23 notes using the same criteria. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
resultsPre-intervention, compliance was high for procedure (95.7%), diagnosis (95.7%), and signature (100%), but critically low for theatre anesthetist's name (4.3%), anticipated blood loss. (13%), and antibiotic prophylaxis (8.7%). Post-intervention, significant improvements were noted in documenting the anesthetist's name (82.6%), anticipated blood loss (82.6%), complications (91.3%), and antibiotic prophylaxis (69.6%). However, unexpected declines were observed in documenting prosthesis identification (from 87% to 26.1%) and tissue details (from 87% to 65.2%). High-compliance areas generally remained stable.
conclusionImplementing a standardized operative note template based on RCS guidelines, combined with education and feedback, significantly improved the completeness of critical documentation elements in orthopedic operative notes. The decline in documenting prosthesis and tissue details highlights the need for focused reinforcement and ongoing monitoring to achieve consistent, comprehensive compliance. Standardized templates are highly effective tools for enhancing surgical documentation quality.
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.