Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41211261›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Adequacy of Operative Notes for Orthopaedic Procedures: A Quality Improvement Project.

Atizaz A Jan, Hassan Imtiaz, Talha Ahmed, Omran Alkhatib, Adam Khan Rahim, Georgios Kouklidis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Atizaz A JanTrauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole Hospital, Poole, GBR.
Hassan ImtiazTrauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole Hospital, Poole, GBR.
Talha AhmedTrauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole Hospital, Poole, GBR.
Omran AlkhatibTrauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole Hospital, Poole, GBR.
Adam Khan RahimInternal Medicine, Hayatabad Medical Complex Peshawar, Peshawar, PAK.
Georgios KouklidisOrthopaedics, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole Hospital, Poole, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHigh-quality operative documentation is fundamental to safe patient care, supporting communication, guiding postoperative management, and serving as a medico-legal record. Despite its importance, variability in the quality and completeness of operative notes remains common.

methodsA closed-loop audit was performed at University Hospital Crosshouse, United Kingdom. The first cycle reviewed 82 operative notes, assessing compliance with set standards. Interventions included encouragement to use typed instead of written operation notes, display of posters in theatres, and introduction of a structured post-operative checklist. A second cycle reviewed 84 notes post-intervention. Results between audit cycles were compared and analysed using chi-squared tests to evaluate the statistical significance of improvements.

resultsIn Cycle 1, typed notes accounted for 25 (30%), with documentation of operative diagnosis in 53 (65%), operative findings in 60 (73%), closure technique in 73 (89%), and signature completion in 78 (95%). Estimated blood loss was recorded in only five (6%) notes, and prosthesis identification (where applicable) in 60 of 69 (87%). In Cycle 2, following the intervention, typed notes increased significantly to 55 (65%). Closure technique documentation improved to 84 (100%) and signature completion to 84 (100%). Modest improvements were found in documentation of operative diagnosis (n=62, 74%) and intra-operative findings (n=68, 81%). Prosthesis identification remained at 87% between audit cycles, and estimated blood loss documentation fell to 2 (2%).

conclusionSimple, low-cost interventions such as visible documentation standards, typed templates, and postoperative checklists produced meaningful improvements in legibility and completion of key operative note parameters. Sustaining and expanding these measures, particularly through electronic templates with mandatory data fields and ongoing audit cycles, could further enhance the accuracy, completeness, and medicolegal robustness of operative documentation within surgical practice.

Indexed as

clinical auditclinical governanceoperation notesorthopaedics surgeryquality improvement (qi)

Identifiers

PMID41211261
PMCPMC12589926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.