ArticleCureus2025
Improving the Quality of Surgical Operative Notes at Managil Teaching Hospital, Sudan: A Clinical Audit.
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.
- Comment on "Association of Hospital For-profit Status with Clinical and Financial Outcomes Following Emergency General Surgery".Surgery open science · 2026Article
- 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
backgroundAccurate and comprehensive surgical operative notes are crucial for patient safety, continuity of care, and medico-legal purposes. However, inconsistencies in documentation quality at Managil Teaching Hospital, Sudan, prompted a clinical audit to evaluate adherence to international standards. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study employed a retrospective-prospective clinical audit design conducted in the General Surgery Department at Managil Teaching Hospital. We evaluated a total of 101 operative notes (51 in the first, retrospective cycle from May 15 to June 15, 2025, and 50 in the second, prospective cycle from June 16, 2025, to July 16, 2025). Notes were assessed against 18 parameters derived from the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) guidelines using a standardized checklist. Interventions included the introduction of a standardized operative note template, staff training sessions on best practices, and the display of visual aids in operating theaters. Data were systematically analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA), employing descriptive statistics to compare compliance rates and calculate percentage improvements between cycles.
resultsThe audit revealed significant improvements in documentation quality following interventions. Notably, there were substantial gains in recording tissue details (from 25 (49%) to 42 (84%), an 35% improvement), prostheses (from 20 (39.2%) to 38 (76%), a 36.8% improvement), and postoperative instructions (from 40 (78.4%) to 45 (90%), an 11.6% improvement). The most significant improvements were observed in documenting complications (15 (29.4%) to 35 (70%), +40.6%) and extra procedures (10 (19.6%) to 30 (60%), +40.4%). However, some gaps persisted, particularly in recording anticipated blood loss (10 (19.6%) to 25 (50%)) and DVT prophylaxis (15 (29.4%) to 30 (60%)).
conclusionAt Managil Teaching Hospital, the adoption of structured approaches like standardized templates, specialized training, and visual aids significantly boosted the caliber of surgical operative notes. Despite this considerable improvement, persistent vigilance, ongoing education, and consistent audits are crucial to tackle lingering weaknesses, particularly in documenting DVT prophylaxis and projected blood loss, thereby ensuring sustained enhancement in 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.