We have located links that may give you full text access.
Synoptic operative reporting: assessing the completeness, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of synoptic reporting for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.
Surgical Endoscopy 2018 April
OBJECTIVE: Synoptic reporting (SR) is one solution to improve the quality of operative reports. However, SR has not been investigated in bariatric surgery despite an identified need by bariatric surgeons. SR for RYGB was developed using quality indicators (QIs) established by a national Delphi process. The objective of this study is to assess the completeness, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of synoptic versus narrative operative reports (NR) in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
METHODS: A NR and SR were completed on 104 consecutive RYGBs. Two evaluators independently compared the reports to QIs. Completeness and accuracy measures were determined. Reliability was calculated using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Time to complete SR and NR was also compared.
RESULTS: The mean completion rate of SR was 99.8% (±SD 0.98%) compared to 64.0% (±SD 6.15%) for NR (t = 57.9, p < 0.001). All subsections of SR were >99% complete. This was significantly higher than for NR (p < 0.001) except for small bowel division details (p = 0.530). Accuracy was significantly higher for SR than NR (94.2% ± SD 4.31% vs. 53.6% ± SD 9.82%, respectively, p < 0.001). Rater agreement was excellent for both SR (0.11, 95% LOA -0.53 to 0.75) and NR (-0.26, 95% LOA -4.85 to 4.33) (p = 0.242), where 0 denotes perfect agreement. SR completion times were significantly shorter than NR (3:55 min ± SD 1:26 min and 4:50 min ± SD 0:50 min, respectively, p = 0.007).
CONCLUSION: The RYGB SR is superior to NR for completeness and accuracy. This platform is also both reliable and efficient. This SR should be incorporated into clinical practice.
METHODS: A NR and SR were completed on 104 consecutive RYGBs. Two evaluators independently compared the reports to QIs. Completeness and accuracy measures were determined. Reliability was calculated using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Time to complete SR and NR was also compared.
RESULTS: The mean completion rate of SR was 99.8% (±SD 0.98%) compared to 64.0% (±SD 6.15%) for NR (t = 57.9, p < 0.001). All subsections of SR were >99% complete. This was significantly higher than for NR (p < 0.001) except for small bowel division details (p = 0.530). Accuracy was significantly higher for SR than NR (94.2% ± SD 4.31% vs. 53.6% ± SD 9.82%, respectively, p < 0.001). Rater agreement was excellent for both SR (0.11, 95% LOA -0.53 to 0.75) and NR (-0.26, 95% LOA -4.85 to 4.33) (p = 0.242), where 0 denotes perfect agreement. SR completion times were significantly shorter than NR (3:55 min ± SD 1:26 min and 4:50 min ± SD 0:50 min, respectively, p = 0.007).
CONCLUSION: The RYGB SR is superior to NR for completeness and accuracy. This platform is also both reliable and efficient. This SR should be incorporated into clinical practice.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app