Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Results of an Audit of Orthopaedic Operation Notes from a Tertiary Care Centre: Are We Doing It Right and Can We Do More?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) published the Good Surgical Practice guidelines in 2008 and subsequently revised them in 2014. Essentially, they outline the basic standards that need to be met by all surgical operation notes. The objective of the present study was to retrospectively audit the orthopaedic operation notes from a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai (between October 2020 to March 2021) against the recommended RCS Good Surgical Practice guidelines published in 2014.

Method

In the present study a total of 153 orthopaedic operation notes of 200 patients were audited by a single reviewer. During the period between October 2020 and March 2021, the data collection took place. All notes were typed on the standard operative proforma available on the hospital patient management software (SAP).

Results

Overall, the mandated fields in the EMR had excellent documentation. Documentation was excellent for the date and time of surgery, name of the surgeon, the procedure performed (100%), operative diagnosis (99.35%), an extra procedure performed (100%), and details of antibiotic prophylaxis (99.35); Inadequate for details of incision (94.77%), details of operative findings (92.16%), details of prosthesis (97.37%), DVT prophylaxis (96.08%) and detailed post-operative instructions (93.46%) and poor for tourniquet time (41.83%;), estimated blood loss (59.48%), closure details (16.99%), documentation of complications or lack of (51.63%) and setting of surgery elective or emergency (0%).

Conclusion

Compliance for completion and documentation of operative procedures was high in some areas; improvement is needed in documenting tourniquet time, prosthesis and incision details, and the location of operative diagnosis and postoperative instructions. With wider adoption of electronic medical record systems, there is a scope of improving documentation by mandating certain fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Organisation WH. (2008). Patient Safety Workshop LEARNING FROM ERROR.

  2. Catchpole, K., Panesar, S., Russel, J., Tang, V., Hibbert, P., Cleary, K. (2009). Surgical safety can be improved through better understanding of incidents reported to a national database. Nat Patient Safety Agency

  3. Payne, K., Jones, K., & Dickenson, A. (2011). Improving the standard of operative notes within an oral and maxillofacial surgery department, using an operative note proforma. Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, 10, 203–208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Al Hussainy, H., Ali, F., Jones, S., McGregor-Riley, J., & Sukumar, S. (2004). Improving the standard of operation notes in orthopaedic and trauma surgery: The value of a proforma. Injury, 35, 1102–1106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morgan, D., Fisher, N., Ahmad, A., & Alam, F. (2009). Improving operation notes to meet British Orthopaedic Association guidelines. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 91, 217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. RCSEng. (2014). Good Surgical Practice

  7. BOA/BASK. (1999). Knee replacement: a guide to good practice

  8. Sweed, T., Bonajmah, A., & Mussa, M. (2014). Audit of operation notes in an orthopaedic unit. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery, 22, 218–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901402200221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghosh, A. (2010). An audit of orthopedic operation notes: What are we missing? Clinical Audit, 2, 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bateman, N. D., Carney, A. S., & Gibbin, K. P. (1999). An audit of the quality of operation notes in an otolaryngology unit. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 44, 94–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Baigrie, R. J., Dowling, B. L., Birch, D., & Dehn, T. C. (1994). An audit of the quality of operation notes in two district general hospitals. Are we following Royal College guidelines? Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 76(1), 8–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mustafa, M. K. E., Khairy, A. M. M., & Ahmed, A. B. E. (2020). Assessing the quality of orthopaedic operation notes in accordance with the royal college of surgeons guidelines: an audit cycle. Cureus., 12(8), e9707.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Barritt, A. W., Clark, L., Cohen, A. M., Hosangadi-Jayedev, N., & Gibb, P. A. (2010). Improving the quality of procedure-specific operation reports in orthopaedic surgery. The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 92, 159–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. (2008). WHO’s patient-safety checklist for surgery. Lancet. 372

  15. Fudickar, A., Hörle, K., Wiltfang, J., & Bein, B. (2012). The effect of the WHO surgical safety checklist on complication rate and communication. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 109(42), 695–701. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2012.0695

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics Surgery, Sir H. N. Reliance Foundation Hospital, Girgaum, Mumbai, 400004, Maharashtra, India

    Sanesh Tuteja, Anjali Tiwari, Jayesh Bhanushali & Vaibhav Bagaria

Authors
  1. Sanesh Tuteja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anjali Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jayesh Bhanushali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vaibhav Bagaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vaibhav Bagaria.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tuteja, S., Tiwari, A., Bhanushali, J. et al. Results of an Audit of Orthopaedic Operation Notes from a Tertiary Care Centre: Are We Doing It Right and Can We Do More?. JOIO 56, 2223–2227 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00765-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00765-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation