ArticleCureus2025
From Audit to Action: Assessing and Implementing Improvements in the Operative Note Documentation for Day-Case Surgeries.
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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Operative notes play an important role in ensuring patient safety, continuity of care, and medico-legal responsibility. Regardless of international standards, such as the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) Good Surgical Practice, compliance is still low in most low- and middle-income countries, including Sudan. Aim The purpose of the closed-loop clinical audit is to assess and enhance adherence to the standards of operative note documentation in day-case surgeries at Almanagil Teaching Hospital, Almanagil, Sudan. Methods A quality improvement audit was performed over a period of three months, consisting of two cycles (pre- and post-intervention, with 53 operative notes each). A structured checklist was used to evaluate the documentation according to RCS standards. The interventions included staff education, standardized templates, and supervision. Chi-square tests were used to assess compliance between cycles. Results The compliance baseline was impaired in the main areas of estimated blood loss (0%), incision description (0%), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis (2%), and surgeon's signature (8%). The most substantial change following the intervention was that almost all parameters improved (p < 0.001), with 100% compliance achieved in operative findings, complications, closure technique, DVT prophylaxis, and surgeon's signature. There were continued inadequacies in the documentation of hospital file number (69.8%) and the reason why antibiotic prophylaxis was omitted (43.4%). Overall documentation increased by 41.3%, rising from 30.3% to 71.6% in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2, respectively. Conclusion The use of templates, education, and supervision as structured interventions made a significant contribution to enhancing the compliance of operative note documentation. Nevertheless, the lack of patient identifiers and the adequacy of the justification for antibiotic prophylaxis demonstrate that continuous audit cycles and e-documentation systems should be maintained to sustain the improvement.
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.