Abstract
Background: Quality of surgery is a proven prognostic factor in many tumors. It is critical to ensure that an effective method is in place to evaluate surgery accurately.
Material and Methods: A provincial Cancer Surgery Working Group designed and piloted a computerized synoptic operative report template (WebSMR) in rectal cancer surgery, to replace the standard narrative operative record (NR). This included a precise description of the procedure, data on demographics, diagnostic evaluation, staging, and functional measures. A total of 70 items for anterior resection (AR) and 63 items for abdominoperinal excision (APR) were included. The WebSMR was assessed for comparison with 40 NR randomly selected from seven hospitals in Southern Alberta from 2001 to 2003.
Results: The NR contained 45.9% of the specified data elements and the WebSMR captured 99%. The most complete NR data (68.8% to 97%) concerned hospital and patient data, anesthetist and surgeon information, approach, and closure details. The important details of laparotomy and tumor resection were the next most complete data (33.5% to 47.5%) and the least complete (0 to 25%) concerned preoperative treatment, comorbidity, and metastatic and local assessment. All differences among these groups were statistically different (P < .001). No statistically significant differences were seen in the completeness of the NR according to the type of surgery (AR vs. APR; P = .1) or the dictating surgeon (colorectal vs. general vs. resident; P = .175). The time needed to complete the WebSMR test was only 6 minutes.
Conclusion: The science of surgical technique can be better measured by this unique instrument and will create accountability in surgery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Kapiteijn E, van de Velde CJ. Developments and quality assurance in rectal cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 919–36.
Giacomantonio CA, Temple WJ. Quality of cancer surgery: challenges and controversies. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2000; 9: 51–60.
Landheer ML, Therasse P, van de Velde CJ. The importance of quality assurance in surgical oncology. Eur J Surg Oncol 2002; 28: 571–602.
Hermanek P, Hermanek PJ. Role of the surgeon as a variable in the treatment of rectal cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 2000; 19: 329–35.
Martling A, Cedermark B, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Holm T. The surgeon as a prognostic factor after the introduction of total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 1008–13.
Royal College of Surgeons of England. Guidelines for Clinicians on Medical Records and Notes. London: 1990; (Revised ed., 1994).
Baigrie RJ, Dowling BL, Birch D, Dehn TC. An audit of the quality of operation notes in two district general hospitals. Are we following Royal College guidelines? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994; 76 (1 Suppl): 8–10.
Harriss DR, Blake JR. Computerized audit for colorectal cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993; 75: 268–71.
DeOrio JK. Surgical templates for orthopedic operative reports. Orthopedics 2002; 25: 639–42.
Lissauer T, Paterson CM, Simons A, Beard RW. Evaluation of computer generated neonatal discharge summaries. Arch Dis Child 1991; 66(4 Spec No): 433–6.
Sleszynski SL, Glonek T, Kuchera WA. Standardized medical record: a new outpatient osteopathic SOAP note form: validation of a standardized office form against physician’s progress notes. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1999; 99: 516–29.
van Walraven C, Laupacis A, Seth R, Wells G. Dictated versus database-generated discharge summaries: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ 1999; 160: 319–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Edhemovic, I., Temple, W.J., de Gara, C.J. et al. The Computer Synoptic Operative Report—A Leap Forward in the Science of Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 11, 941–947 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2004.12.045
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2004.12.045