European Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 36 , Pages S44-S49 , September 2010

Synoptic operative record for point of care outcomes: A leap forward in knowledge translation

  • L.A. Mack

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery and Oncology, University of Calgary, 1331-29th Street NW, Calgary AB T2N 4N2, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 403 521 3169.
    • ,
  • K. Dabbs

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, University of Edmonton, 166 Meadowlark Health Centre, Edmonton, AB T5R 5W9, Canada
    • ,
  • W.J. Temple

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery and Oncology, University of Calgary, 1331-29th Street NW, Calgary AB T2N 4N2, Canada

,Accepted 1 June 2010.

References 

  1. Mack LA, Bathe OF, Hebert MA, et al. Opening the black box of cancer surgery quality: WebSMR and the Alberta experience. J Surg Oncol. 2009;99:525–530
  2. Elevitch FR. SNOMED CT: electronic health record enhances anesthesia patient safety. AANA J. 2005;73:361–366
  3. Cruz-Correia FJ, Viera-Marquies PM, Ferreira AM, et al. Reviewing the integration of patient data: how systems are evolving in practice to meet patient needs. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:14
  4. Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ, et al. The computer synoptic operative report – a leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11:941–947
  5. Lefter LP, Walker SR, Dewhurst F, et al. An audit of operative notes: facts and ways to improve. ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:800–802
  6. Nicopoullos JD, Karrar S, Gour A, et al. Significant improvement in quality of caesarean section documentation with dedicated operative proforma–completion of the audit cycle. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;23:381–386
  7. Shayah A, Agada FO, Gunasekaran S, et al. The quality of operative note taking: an audit using the Royal College of Surgeons Guidelines as the gold standard. Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61:677–679
  8. Harvey A, Zhang H, Nixon J, et al. Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for database-related research and quality control. Surgery. 2007;114:708–714
  9. Cowan DA, Sands MB, Rabizadeh SM, et al. Electronic templates versus dictation for the completion of Mohs micrographic surgery operative notes. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33:588–595
  10. Cross SS, Feeley KM, Angel CA. The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51:481–482
  11. Rigby K, Brown SR, Lakin G, et al. The use of a proforma improves colorectal cancer pathology reporting. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1999;81:401–403
  12. Karim RZ, van den Berg KS, Colman MH, et al. The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma. Histopathology. 2008;52:130–138
  13. Delaney G, Shafiq J, Chappell G, et al. Establishing treatment benchmarks for mammography-screened breast cancer population based on a review of evidence-based guidelines. Cancer. 2008;112:1912–1922
  14. Rickard MT, Taylor RJ, Fazli MA, et al. Interval breast cancers in an Australian mammographic screening program. Med J Aust. 1998;169:184–187
  15. Hershman DL, Buono D, Jacobson JS, et al. Surgeon characteristics and use of breast conservation surgery in women with early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2009;249:828–833
  16. Lazovich D, Solomon CC, Thomas DB, et al. Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Heath Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1999;86:628–637
  17. McGuire KP, Santillan AA, Kaur P, et al. Are mastectomies on the rise? A 13-year trend analysis of the selection of mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy in 5865 patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2682–2690
  18. Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Dziekan G, et al. Effect of a 19-item surgical safety checklist during urgent operations in a global patient population. Ann Surg. 2010;251:976–980
  19. Rodriguez JF, Trobo AR, Garcia MV, et al. The effect of performance feedback on wound infection rate in abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:182–187
  20. Rowell KS, Turrentine FE, Hutter MM, et al. Use of national surgical quality improved program data as a catalyst for quality improvement. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:1293–1300
  21. Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, et al. Does surgical quality improve in the American College of surgeons national surgical quality improvement program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg. 2009;250:363–376
  22. Temple WJ, Francis WP, Tamano E, et al. Synoptic surgical reporting for breast cancer surgery: an innovation in knowledge translation. Am J Surg. 2010 Feb 15;

PII: S0748-7983(10)00181-2

doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2010.06.005

European Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 36 , Pages S44-S49 , September 2010

Article Tools