Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of consensus-derived quality indicators for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy operative reports

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Synoptic operative reporting has been used as a solution to the poor quality of narrative reports. The aim of this study was to develop operative report quality indicators for the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and to generate parameters by which these reports can be evaluated and improved.

Methods

A Delphi protocol was used to determine quality indicators for LSG. Bariatric surgeons across Canada were recruited along with key physician stakeholders to participate via a secure web-based platform. Transferrable consensus items for LSG from previously developed Roux-en-Y gastric bypass operative indictors were put forward for consideration. Participants also initially submitted potential QIs. These were grouped by theme. Items were rated on 5-point Likert scales in subsequent rounds. Scores of 70% or higher were used for inclusion and 30% or less denoted exclusion. Elements scoring 30% to 70% agreement were recirculated by runoff in subsequent rounds to generate the final list of quality indicators.

Results

Seven bariatric surgeons, representing all regions preforming LSG in Canada, were invited to participate in the Delphi group. Multidisciplinary invitees included one academic minimally invasive/acute care surgeon, one tertiary abdominal radiologist, and one academic gastroenterologist with bariatric expertise. Two rounds were required to achieve consensus. Both rounds achieved a 100% response (10/10). In round 1, forty items reached consensus. In Round 2, an additional 28 items reached consensus, with three items excluded, bringing the total number of quality indicators to 65.

Conclusion

This study establishes consensus-derived multidisciplinary quality indicators for LSG operative reports. Application of these findings aims to advance the quality and completeness of operative reporting in LSG in order to improve communication of important surgical details and quality measures to the multidisciplinary team involved in bariatric surgery care.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harvey A, Zhang H, Nixon J, Brown CJ (2007) Comparison of data extraction from standardized versus traditional narrative operative reports for database-related research and quality control. Surgery 141:708–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.01.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vergis A, Stogryn SE, Mullan MJ, Hardy K (2017) Electronic synoptic reporting: assessing the completeness of synoptic and narrative reports for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 13:1863–1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2017.02.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vergis A, Hardy K, Stogryn S (2019) Fellow and attending surgeon operative notes are deficient in reporting established quality indicators for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a preliminary retrospective analysis of operative dictation. Cureus 11:e4535. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4535

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Thomson DR, Baldwin MJ, Bellini MI, Silva MA (2016) Improving the quality of operative notes for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: assessing the impact of a standardized operation note proforma. Int J Surg 27:17–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.01.037

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stogryn SE, Hardy K, Mullan MJ, Park J, Andrew C, Vergis A (2017) Synoptic operative reporting: assessing the completeness, accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of synoptic reporting for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 32:1729–1739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5855-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stogryn S, Hardy K, Vergis A (2017) Bariatric operative reporting: Quality assessment and perceptions among bariatric surgeons. Surg Obes Relat Dis 13:429–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Donahoe L, Bennett S, Temple W, Hilchie-Pye A, Dabbs K, Macintosh E, Porter G (2012) Completeness of dictated operative reports in breast cancer–the case for synoptic reporting. J Surg Oncol 106:79–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schneider L, Shargall Y, Schieman C, Seely AJ, Srinathan S, Malthaner RA, Pierre AF, Safieddine N, Vaillancourt R, Plourde M, Bond J, Johnson S, Smith SE, Finley CJ (2014) Design of a consensus-derived synoptic operative report for lung cancer surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 97:1163–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.12.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Park J, Pillarisetty VG, Brennan MF, Jarnagin WR, D’Angelica MI, Dematteo RP, Coit DG, Janakos M, Allen PJ (2010) Electronic synoptic operative reporting: assessing the reliability and completeness of synoptic reports for pancreatic resection. J Am Coll of Surg 211:308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chambers AJ, Pasieka JL, Temple WJ (2009) Improvement in the accuracy of reporting key prognostic and anatomic findings during thyroidectomy by using a novel Web-based synoptic operative reporting system. Surgery 146:1090–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wiebe ME, Sandhu L, Takata JL, Kennedy ED, Baxter NN, Gagliardi AR, Urbach DR, Wei AC (2013) Quality of narrative operative reports in pancreatic surgery. Can J Surg 56:E121–E127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Shih A, Smith B, Hohmann S (2013) Use of laparoscopy in general surgical operations at academic centers. Surg Obes Relat Dis 9:15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2012.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2014) Bariatric Surgery in Canada.

  14. Buchwald H, Oien DM (2013) Metabolic/bariatric surgery worldwide 2011. Obes Surg 23:427–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-012-0864-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P, Formisano G, Buchwald H, Scopinaro N (2015) Bariatric Surgery Worldwide 2013. Obes Surg 25:1822–1832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1657-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (2018) Estimate of Bariatric Surgery Numbers, 2011–2018.

  17. Brethauer SA, Kothari S, Sudan R, Williams B, English WJ, Brengman M, Kurian M, Hutter M, Stegemann L, Kallies K, Nguyen NT, Ponce J, Morton JM (2014) Systematic review on reoperative bariatric surgery: American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Revision Task Force. Surg Obes Relat Dis 10:952–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.02.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sharples AJ, Charalampakis V, Daskalakis M, Tahrani AA, Singhal R (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after revisional bariatric surgery following a failed adjustable gastric band. Obes Surg 27:2522–2536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2677-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Haskins IN, Jackson HT, Graham AE, Chen S, Sparks AD, Lin PP, Vaziri K (2019) The effect of bougie size and distance from the pylorus on dehydration after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: an analysis of the ACS-MBSAQIP database. Surg Obes Relat Dis 15:1656–1661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2019.08.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schwartz GF, Giuliano AE, Veronesi U (2002) Proceedings of the Consensus Conference on the role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in carcinoma of the breast, April 19–22, 2001, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Cancer 94:2542–2551. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10539.

  21. Hasson F, Keeney S (2011) Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78:1695–1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stogryn S, Park J, Hardy K, Vergis A (2017) Development of consensus-derived quality indicators for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis 13:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2016.08.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rogers AM (2020) Current state of bariatric surgery: procedures, data, and patient management. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 23:100654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvir.2020.100654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sheetz KH, Woodside KJ, Shahinian VB, Dimick JB, Montgomery JR, Waits SA (2019) Trends in bariatric surgery procedures among patients with ESKD in the United States. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 14:1193–1199. https://doi.org/10.2215/cjn.01480219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gu J, Vergis A (2020) Diabetes improvement and bariatric surgery-review of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs. laparoscopic vertical sleeve gastrectomy. Ann Transl Med 8:S10. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.01.47.

  26. Peterli R, Wölnerhanssen BK, Peters T, Vetter D, Kröll D, Borbély Y, Schultes B, Beglinger C, Drewe J, Schiesser M, Nett P, Bueter M (2018) Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss in patients with morbid obesity: the SM-BOSS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319:255–265. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.20897

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Salminen P, Helmiö M, Ovaska J, Juuti A, Leivonen M, Peromaa-Haavisto P, Hurme S, Soinio M, Nuutila P, Victorzon M (2018) Effect of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy vs laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass on weight loss at 5 years among patients with morbid obesity: the SLEEVEPASS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319:241–254. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.20313

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Parikh JA, Yermilov I, Jain S, McGory ML, Ko CY, Maggard MA (2007) How much do standardized forms improve the documentation of quality of care? J Surg Res 143:158–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2007.03.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ramos AC, Bastos EL de S, Ramos MG, Bertin NTS, Galvão TD, Lucena RTF de, Campos JM (2015) Technical aspects of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Arq Bras Cir Dig 28 Suppl 1:65–68.

  30. Chung AY, Thompson R, Overby DW, Duke MC, Farrell TM (2018) Sleeve gastrectomy: surgical tips. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28:930–937. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weiner RA, Weiner S, Pomhoff I, Jacobi C, Makarewicz W, Weigand G (2007) Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy–influence of sleeve size and resected gastric volume. Obes Surg 17:1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-007-9232-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Choi YY, Bae J, Hur KY, Choi D, Kim YJ (2012) Reinforcing the staple line during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: does it have advantages? a meta-analysis. Obes Surg 22:1206–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-012-0674-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Albanopoulos K, Alevizos L, Flessas J, Menenakos E, Stamou KM, Papailiou J, Natoudi M, Zografos G, Leandros E (2012) Reinforcing the staple line during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: prospective randomized clinical study comparing two different techniques. Preliminary Results Obes Surg 22:42–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-011-0421-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lim R, Beekley A, Johnson DC, Davis KA (2018) Early and late complications of bariatric operation. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 3:e000219. https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2018-000219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Peters X, Gangemi A (2018) An update on bariatric tourism: time for a national registry? Surg Obes Relat Dis 14:528–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2017.12.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Labonté R (2015) Should Canada’s Hospitals Open Their Doors to Medical Tourists? https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.3485.3284.

  37. Kim DH, Sheppard CE, de Gara CJ, Karmali S, Birch DW (2016) Financial costs and patients’ perceptions of medical tourism in bariatric surgery. Can J Surg 59:59–61. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.004215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Crooks VA, Kingsbury P, Snyder J, Johnston R (2010) What is known about the patient’s experience of medical tourism? a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 10:266. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-266

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Dalen JE, Alpert JS (2019) Medical tourists: incoming and outgoing. Am J Med 132:9–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.06.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sheppard CE, Lester ELW, Chuck AW, Kim DH, Karmali S, de Gara CJ, Birch DW (2014) Medical tourism and bariatric surgery: who pays? Surg Endosc 28:3329–3336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3613-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sheppard CE, Lester ELW, Karmali S, de Gara CJ, Birch DW (2014) The cost of bariatric medical tourism on the Canadian healthcare system. Am J Surg 207:743–6; discussion 746–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.01.004.

  42. Gangemi A, Young A, Elli EF (2015) A rare sequela after a case of early bariatric surgery tourism. Surg Obes Relat Dis 11:e1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.09.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stogryn S, Hardy KM, Abou-Setta AM, Clouston KM, Metcalfe J, Vergis AS (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Abbas SH, Singh S, Sundran R, Akbari K, Gilmour J, Puttick M (2016) A thorough note: does a procedure-specific operation note proforma for laparoscopic appendicectomy improve compliance with the Royal College of Surgeons of England Guidelines? Int J Surg Open 2:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Maniar RL, Sytnik P, Wirtzfeld DA, Hochman DJ, McKay AM, Yip B, Hebbard PC, Park J (2015) Synoptic operative reports enhance documentation of best practices for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 112:555–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Robertson RL, Vergis A (2020) Synoptic operative reporting: documentation of quality of care data for rectal cancer surgery. Am Surg 86:184–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Theivendran K, Hassan S, Clark DI (2016) Improving the quality of operative notes by implementing a new electronic template for upper limb surgery at the Royal Derby Hospital. BMJ Qual Improv Rep. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u208727.w3498

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Anderson C, Weber R, Patel D, Lowrance W, Mellis A, Cookson M, Lang M, Barocas D, Chang S, Newberger E, Montgomery JS, Weizer AZ, Lee CT, Kava BR, Jackson M, Meraney A, Sjoberg D, Bochner B, Dalbagni G, Donat M, Herr H (2016) A 10-item checklist improves reporting of critical procedural elements during transurethral resection of bladder tumor. J Urol 196:1014–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.151

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Kushner RF, Sorensen KW (2015) Prevention of weight regain following bariatric surgery. Curr Obes Rep 4:198–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-015-0146-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ma P, Reddy S, Higa KD (2016) Revisional bariatric/metabolic surgery: what dictates its indications? Curr Atheroscler Rep 18:42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-016-0592-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hong D, Hagen J, Tiboni M, Valerie T (2015) OBN Surgical Task Force Report on Revision/Conversion Bariatric Surgery. Ontario Bariatric Network

  52. Karmali S, Brar B, Shi X, Sharma AM, de Gara C, Birch DW (2013) Weight recidivism post-bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Obes Surg 23:1922–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-013-1070-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Switzer NJ, Karmali S, Gill RS, Sherman V (2016) Revisional bariatric surgery. Surg Clin North Am 96:827–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2016.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Deal SB, D’Angelica MI, Hawkins WG, Pucci M, Ujiki M, Brunt LM, Wexner S, Alseidi AA (2018) Synoptic operative reporting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multi institutional pilot study evaluating completeness and surgeon perceptions. Am J Surg 216:935–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.06.008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Maniar RL, Hochman DJ, Wirtzfeld DA, McKay AM, Yaffe CS, Yip B, Silverman R, Park J (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bidwell SS, Merrell SB, Poles G, Morris AM (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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Khajuria A, Charles W, Williams A, Leon-Villapalos J, Atkins J, Jones I, Bache S, Collins D (2019) Implementation of a checklist to enhance operation note quality at a UK burns centre. Burns 45:835–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2018.10.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Nil.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Rady College of Medicine, Max Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Ashley Vergis

  2. General Surgery Residency and Clinician Investigator Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

    Garrett G. R. J. Johnson

  3. Section of General Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Krista Hardy

  4. Community Health and Epidemiology, Department of General Surgery, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Jeffrey Gu

  5. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Alistair Sharples

  6. Division of General Surgery, University Health Network – Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Shannon Stogryn

  7. St. Boniface General Hospital, Z3039-409 Tache Avenue, Winnipeg, MB, R2H 2A6, Canada

    Ashley Vergis

Authors
  1. Ashley Vergis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Garrett G. R. J. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Krista Hardy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeffrey Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alistair Sharples
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shannon Stogryn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashley Vergis.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Ashley Vergis, Garrett G. R. J. Johnson, Krista Hardy, Jeffrey Gu, Alistair Sharples, and Shannon Stogryn have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 44 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vergis, A., Johnson, G.G.R.J., Hardy, K. et al. Development of consensus-derived quality indicators for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy operative reports. Surg Endosc 36, 4969–4976 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08853-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08853-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation