The utility of synoptic operation reports in colorectal surgery: a systematic review.
Colorectal neoplasms
Documentation
Electronic health records
Surgeons
Journal
International journal of colorectal disease
ISSN: 1432-1262
Titre abrégé: Int J Colorectal Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8607899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Apr 2024
30 Apr 2024
Historique:
accepted:
15
03
2024
medline:
1
5
2024
pubmed:
1
5
2024
entrez:
30
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate documentation is crucial in surgical patient care. Synoptic reports (SR) are structured checklist-based reports that offer a standardised alternative to traditional narrative reports (NR). This systematic review aims to assess the completeness of SR compared to NR in colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Secondary outcomes include the time to completion, surgeon satisfaction, educational value, research value, and barriers to implementation. Prospective or retrospective studies that assessed SR compared to NR in colorectal cancer surgery procedures were identified through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), CIHNAL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), and Cochrane. One thousand two articles were screened, and eight studies met the inclusion criteria after full-text review of 17 papers. Analysis included 1797 operative reports (NR, 729; SR, 1068). Across studies reporting this outcome, the completeness of documentation was significantly higher in SR (P < 0.001). Reporting of secondary outcomes was limited, with a predominant focus on research value. Several studies demonstrated significantly reduced data extraction times when utilising SR. Surgeon satisfaction with SR was high, and these reports were seen as valuable tools for research and education. Barriers to implementation included integrating SR into existing electronic medical records (EMR) and surgeon concerns regarding increased administrative burden. SR offer advantages in completeness, data extraction, and communication compared to NR. Surgeons perceive them as beneficial for research, quality improvement, and teaching. This review supports the necessity for development of user-friendly SR that seamlessly integrate into pre-existing EMRs, optimising patient care and enhancing the quality of CRC surgical documentation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38689196
doi: 10.1007/s00384-024-04613-y
pii: 10.1007/s00384-024-04613-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
63Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Lum SS, Vora HP (2022) Synoptic operative reports: can form follow function in surgery? Ann Surg Oncol 29:6515–6517. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11564-7
doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11564-7
pubmed: 35381940
Buchanan J, McCombie A, Connor S, Eglinton T (2022) Improving operative documentation in colorectal cancer surgery: synoptic notes pave the way forward. Anz J Surg 92:1754–1759. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.17643
doi: 10.1111/ans.17643
pubmed: 35347833
Maniar RL, Sytnik P, Wirtzfeld DA et al (2015) Synoptic operative reports enhance documentation of best practices for rectal cancer: Synoptic Operative Reports. Jso 112:555–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24039
doi: 10.1002/jso.24039
Kanters AE, Vu JV, Schuman AD et al (2020) Completeness of operative reports for rectal cancer surgery. Am J Surg 220:165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.036
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.09.036
pubmed: 31630821
Brown PJ, Rossington H, Taylor J et al (2019) Standardised reports with a template format are superior to free text reports: the case for rectal cancer reporting in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 29:5121–5128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06028-8
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06028-8
pubmed: 30796574
pmcid: 6682848
Messenger DE, McLeod RS, Kirsch R (2011) What impact has the introduction of a synoptic report for rectal cancer had on reporting outcomes for specialist gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal pathologists? Arch Pathol Lab Med 135:1471–1475. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2010-0558-oa
doi: 10.5858/arpa.2010-0558-oa
pubmed: 22032575
Bidwell SS, Merrell SB, Poles G et al (2020) Implementation of a synoptic operative report for rectal cancer: a mixed-methods study. Dis Colon Rectum 63:190–199. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000001518
doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000001518
pubmed: 31914112
Stogryn S, Hardy KM, Abou-Setta AM et al (2019) Advancement in the quality of operative documentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of synoptic versus narrative operative reporting. Am J Surg 218:624–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.05.003
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.05.003
pubmed: 31130211
Eryigit Ö, van de Graaf FW, Lange JF (2019) A systematic review on the synoptic operative report versus the narrative operative report in surgery. World J Surg 43:2175–2185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05017-8
doi: 10.1007/s00268-019-05017-8
pubmed: 31049605
DeOrio JK (2002) Surgical templates for orthopedic operative reports. Orthopedics 25:639–642. https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-20020601-13
doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-20020601-13
pubmed: 12083573
Gur I, Gur D, Recabaren JA (2012) The computerized synoptic operative report: a novel tool in surgical residency education. Arch Surg-chicago 147:71–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2011.228
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2011.228
pubmed: 21930975
Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ, Stuart GCE (2004) The computer synoptic operative report—a leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 11:941–947. https://doi.org/10.1245/aso.2004.12.045
doi: 10.1245/aso.2004.12.045
pubmed: 15466354
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
pubmed: 33789826
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G et al (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
pubmed: 28935701
pmcid: 5833365
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174
doi: 10.2307/2529310
pubmed: 843571
Bidwell SS, Poles GC, Shelton AA et al (2022) Motivations and barriers toward implementation of a rectal cancer synoptic operative report: a process evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum 65:353–360. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000002202
doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000002202
pubmed: 34711713
pmcid: 8823905
Robertson RL, Vergis A (2020) Synoptic operative reporting: documentation of quality of care data for rectal cancer surgery. Am Surg 86:184–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313482008600325
doi: 10.1177/000313482008600325
pubmed: 32223795
Maniar RL, Hochman DJ, Wirtzfeld DA et al (2014) Documentation of quality of care data for colon cancer surgery: comparison of synoptic and dictated operative reports. Ann Surg Oncol 21:3592–3597. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3741-3
doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3741-3
pubmed: 24793437
Berlet M, Vogel T, Ostler D et al (2022) Surgical reporting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy based on phase annotation by a convolutional neural network (CNN) and the phenomenon of phase flickering: a proof of concept. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 17:1991–1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02680-6
doi: 10.1007/s11548-022-02680-6
pubmed: 35643827
pmcid: 9515052
Hieken TJ, Burns WR, Francescatti AB et al (2022) Technical standards for cancer surgery: improving patient care through synoptic operative reporting. Ann Surg Oncol 29:6526–6533. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-11330-9
doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11330-9
pubmed: 35174447
Glasgow SC, Morris AM, Baxter NN et al (2016) Development of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons’ Rectal Cancer Surgery Checklist. Dis Colon Rectum 59:601–606. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000000606
doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000000606
pubmed: 27270511
pmcid: 4902168
You YN, Hardiman KM, Bafford A et al (2020) The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Rectal Cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 63:1191–1222. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000001762
doi: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000001762
pubmed: 33216491
Tranter-Entwistle I, Eglinton T, Hugh TJ, Connor S (2022) Use of prospective video analysis to understand the impact of technical difficulty on operative process during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. HPB 24:2096–2103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2022.07.013
doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.07.013
pubmed: 35961932
Curtis NJ, Foster JD, Miskovic D et al (2020) Association of surgical skill assessment with clinical outcomes in cancer surgery. Jama Surg 155:590–598. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1004
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1004
pubmed: 32374371
McGory ML, Shekelle PG, Ko CY (2006) Development of Quality Indicators for Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery. Jnci J National Cancer Inst 98:1623–1633. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj438
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj438
Gagliardi AR, Simunovic M, Langer B et al (2005) Development of quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery, using a 3-step modified Delphi approach. Can J Surg J Can De Chir 48:441–52