ArticleCureus2025
Audit of Operation Notes During Wartime at Abuhamad Hospital, Sudan.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background Operative notes are vital for surgical practice, serving as critical records for postoperative care, clinical audits, and legal documentation. The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCSEng) emphasizes the importance of detailed and structured notes. However, in conflict-affected and low-resource settings like Sudan, the quality of documentation is often poor due to staff shortages, inconsistent training, and the absence of standardized templates. This audit at Abuhamad Hospital aimed to assess operative note quality during wartime, implement corrective measures, and evaluate the outcomes. Material and methods The audit was conducted from August to November 2024, amid internal conflict, using a closed-loop, two-cycle model. In the first cycle, 28 retrospective notes were reviewed using 19 RCSEng-based criteria (e.g., patient details, surgeon name, procedure type, findings, complications, and postoperative instructions). Key deficiencies were identified, and a corrective intervention was introduced, including a standardized printed operative note template, focused staff training, and visual reminders in operating theatres. The second cycle prospectively assessed 33 operative notes post-intervention. Data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS version 25, and ethical approval was obtained. Result In total, 61 notes were audited. The first cycle revealed major gaps: only 9 (32.1%) documented the surgeon, anesthetist, or assistant, and just 1 (3.5%) recorded tissue/prosthesis details or antibiotic prophylaxis. Closure techniques and surgery type appeared in 4 (14.2%), while deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis was entirely absent. Only 5 (17.8%) of notes were signed. Post-intervention, notable improvements were observed: documentation of closure techniques rose to 25 (75.8%), surgeon's name, diagnosis, and postoperative instructions to 25 (75.8%), anesthetist and operation time to 22 (66.7%), and date of operation to 24 (72.7%). Incision details and operative findings also improved substantially. Documentation of DVT prophylaxis increased to 8 (24.2%), and signatures to 13 (39.4%). The mean compliance across all parameters rose from 24.1% to 52.3%, a 28.2% improvement. Conclusion Structured documentation tools and focused training significantly enhanced operative note quality at Abuhamad Hospital, even during wartime. The findings align with both local and international evidence supporting low-cost, high-impact quality improvement methods. Despite a slight decline in documentation of postoperative instructions, the audit highlights the importance of standardization, ongoing training, and regular audits, particularly in resource-limited and unstable 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.