Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Audit on the Quality of Operation Notes in Otolaryngology: Based on Electronic Template

  • Other Articles
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The operative note is a vital document in the treatment and safety of patients. Detailed recording of operation notes can be quite helpful in research, audit and medico-legal problems. This quality improvement programme was conducted to assess the quality of documentation on an electronic template in comparison to the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) guidelines. The electronic template used for recording operation notes was compared with RCS guidelines for completeness. A retrospective review of operation notes for all the operations performed by ENT over 1-month period was done. The deficiencies were shared with the department during monthly quality-improvement meetings. A second cycle was carried out in the month of September. The electronic template that is being used in our hospital matches completely with the RCS recommendation. A total of 90 operative records were analysed in the initial audit. The Compliance was 100% in all parameters except five. In the second cycle of audit, compliance was found to be 100% across all parameters, except one—showing considerable improvement. Electronic templates offer easy recording of operation notes without the help of aide memoire, despite which deficiencies do occur. Regular audits are needed to maintain good record-keeping.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Good Surgical Practice. Royal College of Surgeons (2014) https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/standards-and-research/gsp/domain-1/1-3-record-your-work-clearly-accurately-and-legibly/

  2. Morgan D, Fisher N, Ahmad A, Alam F (2009) Improving operation notes to meet British Orthopaedic Association guidelines. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 91(3):217–219. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588409X359367

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nyamulani N, Mulwafu W (2018) The quality of hand-written operative notes in a surgical unit at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital (QECH), Malawi: a prospective completed audit loop study. Malawi Med J 30(2):86–89. https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v30i2.6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Shayah A, Agada FO, Gunasekaran S, Jassar P, England RJ (2007) The quality of operative note taking: an audit using the Royal College of Surgeons Guidelines as the gold standard. Int J Clin Pract 61(4):677–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01292.x (PMID: 17394439)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Theivendran K, Hassan S, Clark ID (2016) Improving the quality of operative notes by implementing a new electronic template for upper limb surgery at the Royal Derby Hospital. BMJ Open Qual. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u208727.w349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Severn Audit and Research Collaborative in Orthopaedics (2016) Assessing the quality of operation notes: a review of 1092 operation notes in 9 UK hospitals (Erratum in: Patient Saf Surg. 2016;10:8. PMID: 26855672; PMCID: PMC4744456). Patient Saf Surg. 10:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-016-0093-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Atrey A, Corbett SA, Gibb PA, Singh S, Jähnich H (2010) Interactive computer operative notes for arthroscopy of joints: a free and accurate tool for surgeons. Arthroscopy 26(6):853–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2010.04.006 (PMID: 20511045)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Currall VA, Chesser TJ (2008) Computer generated operation notes. Stud Health Technol Inform 137:51–55 (PMID: 18560067)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Bichere A, Sellu D (1997) The quality of operation notes: can simple word processors help? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 79:204–208

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Apparau D, Mohd S, Mohd A, Dick D, Trimble K (2016) Audit of operation notes from a single otorhinolaryngology unit: Does new template improve quality? Int J Surg 36(1):S86–S87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.285

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding needed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ENT, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust, Dudley Road, Birmingham, B18 7 QH, UK

    Sabarinath Vijayakumar, Shilpa Divakaran & Irfan Khan

Authors
  1. Sabarinath Vijayakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shilpa Divakaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Irfan Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabarinath Vijayakumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest to be declared.

Ethical approval

Ethical and Research clearance obtained from Clinical Effectiveness team at Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS trust (as it is an audit, separate ethical clearance not needed as per local policy—audit number 1207).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vijayakumar, S., Divakaran, S. & Khan, I. Audit on the Quality of Operation Notes in Otolaryngology: Based on Electronic Template. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 74, 439–441 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-021-02492-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-021-02492-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation