ArticleCureus2025
Enhancing the Quality of Surgical Documentation Through the Surgical Tool for Auditing Records (STAR): Experience From a Tertiary Care Hospital in South Asia.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Effective record-keeping is crucial for safe surgical care worldwide. While structured tools for auditing records exist, evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains limited. This study was conducted to uphold the standard of surgical record-keeping in a tertiary care center in Sri Lanka using the Surgical Tool for Auditing Records (STAR). Methods This prospective, descriptive closed-loop audit included 92 patient records, 44 from Cycle 1 (April 1-14, 2024) and 48 from Cycle 2 (April 15-28, 2024). The evaluation was conducted using the STAR, which assesses documentation based on 50 criteria distributed across six key domains. Structured templates and educational sessions were utilized as interventions. Both audit cycle scores were compared to draw conclusions. Results The overall quality of surgical documentation improved significantly, with the mean STAR score rising from 67.34 ± 8.32 to 77.11 ± 7.17 (p < 0.001). Statistically significant improvements were noted across most domains except Consent and Anesthetic Records. Enhancements were observed across all evaluated domains, with the Subsequent Entries category showing the most notable progress (34.8%), while the Anesthetic Records demonstrated the smallest improvement (3.31%). The Discharge Summary section performed exceptionally well, attaining an average score of 94.44 ± 5.61; however, the diagnosis was recorded in only 50% of the reviewed records (n = 24/48). Although the Consent domain improved by 25.89%, it continued to be the lowest-scoring area overall. Conclusion Simple, low-cost interventions, such as templates and structured feedback, significantly improved record-keeping quality. Although the STAR has been widely applied globally, this study adds valuable evidence from a Sri Lankan tertiary hospital, offering practical insights for enhancing surgical documentation in LMICs and other resource-limited healthcare systems.
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.