Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CJS
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CMAJ Open
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CJS

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Sections
    • Collections
  • Podcasts
  • Author Info
    • Overview for authors
    • Publication fees
    • Forms
    • Editorial policies
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
  • Careers
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact
  • Subscribe to our alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow CJS on Twitter
Discussions in Surgery
Open Access

Quality indicators for operative reporting in transanal endoscopic surgery

Garrett G.R.J. Johnson, Reagan L. Robertson and Ashley Vergis
CAN J SURG September 07, 2022 65 (5) E599-E604; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.020021
Garrett G.R.J. Johnson
From the Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Johnson, Robertson, Vergis); and the Clinician Investigator Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Johnson)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Reagan L. Robertson
From the Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Johnson, Robertson, Vergis); and the Clinician Investigator Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Johnson)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ashley Vergis
From the Department of Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Johnson, Robertson, Vergis); and the Clinician Investigator Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. (Johnson)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Summary

Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) platforms have become quite popular. Many surgeons across the country have begun excising rectal lesions using these platforms; however, the perioperative decision-making surrounding these excisions can be quite variable. To facilitate care between providers, it would be helpful to standardize the way TES is reported. Synoptic operative reports have previously been established as an effective and efficient communication tool. For patients with rectal cancer, synoptic reports are required for pathology, radiology and major oncologic resections, but never previously for TES. We used a Delphi process including 15 stakeholders from across Canada to develop a TES synoptic report. Participants submitted items according to 6 categories: team characteristics, patient demographics, preoperative work-up, lesion characteristics, procedure details and postoperative details. Twenty-six surgeon-entered and 41 auto-populated items reached final inclusion. This will allow generation of a synoptic reporting template to improve perioperative communication for these patients.

The operative report is a cornerstone of surgical communication. Historically these reports took the form of a dictated narrative description. Meta-analysis has shown that narrative report quality is universally poor.1 This is unacceptable, as operative reports contain critical patient care information. An established method of improving documentation quality is through synoptic reporting. Synoptic reports produce more comprehensive, accurate and reliable information than their narrative counterparts.1 Additionally, synoptic reports collect important quality indicators (QIs), facilitating timely research and policy change that may lead to care improvements.1 The American College of Surgeons’ National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer requires institutions to use synoptic pathology and radiology reports.2 Synoptic reports are also used for total mesorectal excision (TME).2,3 Transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) is a novel surgical technique developed to improve local excision of rectal neoplasms. The technique is widely accepted for removal of neoplastic polyps and early-stage cancers. Additionally, it is increasingly being used for more advanced malignant lesions in conjunction with adjuvant therapies. While synoptic reports based on QIs have been developed for other rectal cancer procedures,2,3 none exist for TES. Therefore, we devised an online Delphi process including physician stakeholders from across Canada to develop consensus-derived QIs for TES procedures, to ultimately develop a TES synoptic reporting template.

The Delphi process is shown in Figure 1; 67 items reached final inclusion (Table 1), and 12 were excluded (Table 2). Participants were 9 colorectal surgeons who regularly perform TES, a surgical oncologist, a general surgeon with expertise in synoptic operative reporting, 2 gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists, an abdominal radiologist and a radiation oncologist.

Fig. 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of the Delphi process to establish consensus-derived quality indicators for a transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) operative report. Participants submitted potential items, then rated them on a 9-point Likert scale. Items scoring 70% or higher were included, whereas scores of 30% or lower were excluded. Items scoring between 30% and 70% were recirculated.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Quality indicators for TES operative report

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Excluded items for TES operative report

Stakeholders from a variety of fields were included to ensure all relevant disciplines for rectal cancer care had input into this report as a communication tool. Rectal cancer care frequently involves a multidisciplinary team that must communicate effectively to make complex medical decisions. Many team members are not present during the surgical procedure, thus there is a particular need for excellent communication. Documentation of relevant findings is essential to make appropriate treatment decisions, such as the decision whether to provide adjuvant therapies or consider further resection.3 As familiarity with TES increases and the purported indications continue to expand, the intricacies of treatment decisions will increase, as will the importance of adequate documentation.

Synoptic reporting has been well-established in oncology, with pathologists being among the first in medicine to adopt and regulate standardized reporting more than 20 years ago. Standardized synoptic reports have been shown to improve communication and increase report quality.1 More recently, operative reports for rectal cancer TME have transitioned to a synoptic template, with excellent results.2,3 Until now, TES has eluded requirements for standardized reporting, which leaves a growing segment of cancers and precancerous lesions treated via this technique without standardized documentation. The accuracy of TES reports are currently unclear, as there are no pre-existing reporting QIs with which to assess this procedure. However, it is widely described that traditional narrative reports have been inadequate for nearly all surgical procedures.1 To bring TES in line with other oncologic operations, development of standardized reports is the next logical step to assess and improve communication for this procedure.

Our survey identified 67 QIs upon which to establish a standard report, and can be used to evaluate existing TES documentation. The number of QIs proposed is similar to previous research on operative reporting,1,3,4 and is necessarily large. The operative report is an opportunity for a single document to contain much valuable information related to the patient’s surgical care. However, the need for creating such reports should be balanced with time constraints and workload for the reporting surgeon. A sample synoptic report for TES based on consensus-derived QIs is shown in Figure 2.

Fig. 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2

A sample synoptic report for transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) based on the consensus-derived quality indicators (QIs). BMI = body mass index; CEA = carcinoembryonic antigen; CT = computed tomography; DVT = deep vein thrombosis; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; N/A = not applicable; PGY = postgraduate year; TAMIS = transanal minimally invasive surgery.

Many of the proposed QIs, particularly in the realms of patient demographics and preoperative work-up, could already be documented in the patient’s chart from preoperative, anesthesiology and/or nursing records. For the surgeon to manually input 67 items for every procedure would be arduous, although it is done regularly for other procedures.3,5 For example, synoptic reports containing 75 items (all manually inputted) for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass at our own institution took on average 3 minutes, 55 seconds to complete, and were nearly 1 minute faster to complete than unstructured, dictated narrative reports.5 We anticipate that a synoptic report using our suggested TES QIs would have a similar duration. For these synoptic reports to be further optimized, effective integration into existing electronic medical records is key. In our own institution, Web Surgical Medical Record (WebSMR) is used to generate synoptic reports for other colorectal procedures. Using this system, 41 of the current TES QIs could be prepopulated from the chart. This would leave only 26 items (those indicated in bold in Table 1) for the surgeon to input, thus permitting more time to document information such as operative procedure details, of which only they have a full understanding. This reduced number is comparable to the 20 items in the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) synoptic report for TME.2 Previous research highlights the importance of also allowing free-text sections in synoptic reports, particularly during early implementation phases, to ensure inclusion of unexpectedly important details that may otherwise be missed.2

Another consideration is how TES, a seemingly less complex procedure than TME, could require more documentation items in the operative report. The most recent 20-item ASCRS report for TME has been piloted in multiple institutions and was abbreviated for feasibility.2 It is possible that, after prospective field testing of the current TES QIs described herein, the synoptic template could be shortened to a similar length as the ASCRS TME report (e.g., by removing some of the elements already documented elsewhere in the chart) if required.

Conclusion

Standardized operative reporting for TES is needed. We describe multidisciplinary, consensus-derived QIs for TES synoptic operative reports. This information will allow assessment of existing documentation for quality and can be used to generate a synoptic reporting template to improve perioperative communication for patients undergoing this procedure.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the University of Manitoba Department of Surgery GFT Research Grant. The authors thank the expert panel of Delphi participants: Cameron Hague, Carl Brown, Dilip Gill, Francois Letarte, Jason Park, Katerina Neumann, Michael Peacock, Manoj Raval, Nathan Ginther, Ramzi Helewa, Wei Xiong.

Footnotes

  • This work was presented at the Canadian Surgery Forum in September 2021 as a podium presentation (Abstract number CSCRS-03).

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Contributors: All authors contributed substantially to the conception, writing and revision of this article and approved the final version for publication.

  • Accepted November 17, 2021.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

References

  1. ↵
    1. Stogryn S,
    2. Hardy KM,
    3. Abou-Setta AM,
    4. et al
    . Advancement in the quality of operative documentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of synoptic versus narrative operative reporting. Am J Surg 2019;218:624–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Bidwell SS,
    2. Merrell SB,
    3. Poles G,
    4. et al
    . Implementation of a synoptic operative report for rectal cancer: a mixed-methods study. Dis Colon Rectum 2020;63:190–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Maniar RL,
    2. Sytnik P,
    3. Wirtzfeld DA,
    4. et al
    . Synoptic operative reports enhance documentation of best practices for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2015;112:555–60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Stogryn S,
    2. Park J,
    3. Hardy K,
    4. et al
    . Development of consensus-derived quality indicators for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2017;13:198–203.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Stogryn SE,
    2. Hardy K,
    3. Mullan MJ,
    4. et al
    . Synoptic operative reporting: assessing the completeness, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of synoptic reporting for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 2018;32:1729–39.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Journal of Surgery: 65 (5)
CAN J SURG
Vol. 65, Issue 5
25 Oct 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CJS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Quality indicators for operative reporting in transanal endoscopic surgery
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CJS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CJS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Quality indicators for operative reporting in transanal endoscopic surgery
Garrett G.R.J. Johnson, Reagan L. Robertson, Ashley Vergis
CAN J SURG Sep 2022, 65 (5) E599-E604; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.020021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Quality indicators for operative reporting in transanal endoscopic surgery
Garrett G.R.J. Johnson, Reagan L. Robertson, Ashley Vergis
CAN J SURG Sep 2022, 65 (5) E599-E604; DOI: 10.1503/cjs.020021
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Authors & Reviewers

  • Overview for Authors
  • Publication Fees
  • Forms
  • Editorial Policies
  • Submit a manuscript

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibility
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CJS represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

View CMA's Accessibility policy.

Powered by HighWire