Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differences Between Attendings’ and Residents’ Operative Notes for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Operative notes are the gold standard for detecting adverse events and near misses and form the basis for scientific research. In order to guarantee safe patient care, operative notes must be objective, complete, and accurate. This study explores the current routine of note writing for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and the differences between the notes of attendings and residents.

Methods

Attendings and residents were sent a DVD with footage of three LCs and were asked to “write” the corresponding notes and to complete a questionnaire. Dictation tapes were transcribed and items in the notes were analyzed for each procedure (“item described” or “item not described”). Fisher’s exact tests were performed using SPSS 16.0 for Mac.

Results

Thirteen sets of typewritten notes and 10 dictation tapes were returned. The results of the questionnaire showed that 16 of the 23 sets of notes were dictated. Eight participants found the current system for generating notes inadequate. 14 items (31 %) were included more often in the attendings’ notes and 25 items (56 %) were included more often in the residents’ notes. Overall, residents significantly more often described the location of the epigastric trocar (P = 0.018), the size of both working trocars (P = 0.019), the opening of the peritoneal envelope (P = 0.002), Critical View of Safety reached (P = 0.002), and the location for removing the gallbladder (P = 0.019). With the exception of “gallbladder perforation” (20 of 21 notes), complications were underreported.

Conclusions

In this study residents described more items than attendings. All notes lacked information concerning complications in the procedure, which makes the notes subjective and incomplete. A procedure-specific template or black-box-based operative notes based on established guidelines could improve the quality of the notes of both attendings and residents.

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. Parikh JA, Yermilov I, Jain S et al (2007) How much do standardized forms improve the documentation of quality of care? J Surg Res 143:158–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Menzin AW, Spitzer M (2003) Teaching operative dictation. A survey of obstetrics/gynecology residency program directors. J Reprod Med 48:850–852

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eichholz AC, Van Voorhis BJ, Sorosky JI et al (2004) Operative note dictation: should it be taught routinely in residency programs? Obstet Gynecol 103:342–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lefter LP, Walker SR, Dewhurst F et al (2008) An audit of operative notes: facts and ways to improve. ANZ J Surg 78:800–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen MM, Ammon AA (1998) A solution to the problem of undictated operative reports by residents. Am J Surg 176:475–480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gillman LM, Vergis A, Hardy K et al (2010) Resident training and the dictated operative report: a national perspective. Can J Surg 53:246–250

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gillman LM, Vergis A, Park J et al (2010) Structured operative reporting: a randomized trial using dictation templates to improve operative reporting. Am J Surg 199:846–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Porterfield JR Jr, Altom LK, Graham LA et al (2011) Descriptive operative reports: teaching, learning, and milestones to safe surgery. J Surg Educ 68:452–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scherer R, Zhu Q, Langenberg P et al (2003) Comparison of information obtained by operative note abstraction with that recorded on a standardized data collection form. Surgery 133:324–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ et al (2004) The computer synoptic operative report–a leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 11:941–947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Novitsky YW, Sing RF, Kercher KW et al (2005) Prospective, blinded evaluation of accuracy of operative reports dictated by surgical residents. Am Surg 71:627–631 discussion 631–622

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rafiq A, Zhao X, Tamariz F et al (2007) A user-centred framework for an electronic multimedia surgical information system in operating rooms. J Inf Technol Healthc 5:5–17

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mack LA, Bathe OF, Hebert MA et al (2009) Opening the black box of cancer surgery quality: WebSMR and the Alberta experience. J Surg Oncol 99:525–530

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Baigrie RJ, Dowling BL, Birch D et al (1994) An audit of the quality of operation notes in two district general hospitals. Are we following Royal College guidelines? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 76:8–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogers A, Bunting M, Atherstone A (2008) The quality of operative notes at a general surgery unit. S Afr Med J 98:726–728

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Osborn GD, Pike H, Smith M et al (2005) Quality of clinical case note entries: how good are we at achieving set standards? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 87:458–460

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Borchert D, Harshen R, Kemps M et al (2006) Operative notes teaching: re-discovery of an effective teaching tool in surgical training. Internet J Surg 8:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moore RA (2000) The dictated operative note: important but is it being taught? J Am Coll Surg 190:639–640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Zehetner J, Shamiyeh A, Wayand W (2007) Lost gallstones in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: all possible complications. Am J Surg 193:73–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lien HH, Huang CC, Liu JS et al (2007) System approach to prevent common bile duct injury and enhance performance of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:164–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dutch Society of Surgery (2006) Advice: guideline laparoscopic cholecystectomy. http://www.artsennet.nl/Richtlijnen/Richtlijn/70715/Laparoscopische-Cholecystectomie.htm. Accessed 16 April 2013

  22. Strasberg SM (2002) Avoidance of biliary injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 9:543–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Reason J (2000) Human error: models and management. BMJ 320:768–770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Leape LL (1997) A systems analysis approach to medical error. J Eval Clin Pract 3:213–222

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Stewart L, Hunter JG, Wetter A et al (2010) Operative reports: form and function. Arch Surg 145:865–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mackenzie CF, Xiao Y, Hu FM et al (2007) Video as a tool for improving tracheal intubation tasks for emergency medical and trauma care. Ann Emerg Med 50:436–442, 442 e431

    Google Scholar 

  27. de Reuver PR, Dijkgraaf MG, Gevers SK et al (2008) Poor agreement among expert witnesses in bile duct injury malpractice litigation: an expert panel survey. Ann Surg 248:815–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gur I, Gur D, Recabaren JA (2012) The computerized synoptic operative report: a novel tool in surgical residency education. Arch Surg 147:71–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wauben LS, Goossens RH, van Eijk DJ et al (2008) Evaluation of protocol uniformity concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the Netherlands. World J Surg 32:613–620. doi:10.1007/s00268-007-9323-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuwada T (2005) Highlights of The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons Annual Meeting, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, April 13–16, 2005. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/506432. Accessed 16 April 2013

  31. Neugebauer EAM, Sauerland S, Fingerhut A et al (2006) EAES guidelines for endoscopic surgery. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. The Joint Commission (2008) Operative Reports. http://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/jcfaqdetails.aspx?StandardsFaqId=215&ProgramId=47. Accessed 16 April 2013

  33. The Royal College of Surgeons of England (2008) Good Surgical Practice. http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/publications/docs/good-surgical-practice-1. Accessed 16 April 2013

  34. Vergis A, Gillman L, Minor S et al (2008) Structured assessment format for evaluating operative reports in general surgery. Am J Surg 195:24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guerlain S, Adams RB, Turrentine FB et al (2005) Assessing team performance in the operating room: development and use of a “black-box” recorder and other tools for the intraoperative environment. J Am Coll Surg 200:29–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gale EA (2004) The Hawthorne studies—a fable for our times? QJM 97:439–449

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating attendings and residents for taking part in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands

    Linda S. G. L. Wauben

  2. Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Linda S. G. L. Wauben & Johan F. Lange

  3. Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands

    Linda S. G. L. Wauben & Richard H. M. Goossens

  4. Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Richard H. M. Goossens

Authors
  1. Linda S. G. L. Wauben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard H. M. Goossens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johan F. Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda S. G. L. Wauben.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wauben, L.S.G.L., Goossens, R.H.M. & Lange, J.F. Differences Between Attendings’ and Residents’ Operative Notes for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. World J Surg 37, 1841–1850 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2050-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2050-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation