The study did not show significant sensorineural hearing loss at or below 3 kHz. Vestibular and cochlear function has no clinically relevant suppression after Er:YAG laser stapedotomy.
Background: Quality in health care can be evaluated using quality indicators (QIs). Elements contained in the surgical operative report are potential sources for QI data, but little is known about the completeness of the narrative operative report (NR). We evaluated the completeness of the NR for patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods:We reviewed NRs for patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy over a 1-year period. We extracted 79 variables related to patient and narrator characteristics, process of care measures, surgical technique and oncology-related outcomes by document analysis. Data were coded and evaluated for completeness. Results:We analyzed 74 NRs. The median number of variables reported was 43.5 (range 13-54). Variables related to surgical technique were most complete. Process of care and oncology-related variables were often omitted. Completeness of the NR was associated with longer operative duration. Conclusion:The NRs were often incomplete and of poor quality. Important elements, including process of care and oncology-related data, were frequently missing. Thus, the NR is an inadequate data source for QI. Development and use of alternative reporting methods, including standardized synoptic operative reports, should be encouraged to improve documentation of care and serve as a measure of quality of surgical care. Conclusion :Les NO sont souvent incomplètes et leur qualité laisse à désirer. Des éléments importants, dont le protocole opératoire et les données oncologiques, étaient souvent manquants. Ainsi, les NO constituent une source inadéquate de données en ce qui concerne les IQ. Il faudra encourager la mise au point et l'utilisation d'autres types de rapports, dont des synopsis opératoires standardisés, pour mieux documenter les soins chirurgicaux prodigués et pour en évaluer la qualité. Q uality improvement is an important component of health care systems. Quality in health care can be evaluated in terms of the structures, processes and outcomes of care.
BackgroundSurgery is a cornerstone of treatment for malignancy. However, significant variation has been reported in patterns and quality of cancer care for important health outcomes, including perioperative mortality. Surgical process improvement tools (SPITs) have been developed that focus on enhancing the processes of care at the point of care, as a means of quality improvement. This study describes SPITs and develops a conceptual framework by synthesizing the available literature on these novel quality improvement tools.MethodsA scoping review was conducted based on instruments developed for quality improvement in surgery. The search was executed on electronically indexed sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library) from January 1990 to March 2011. Data were extracted, tabulated and reported thematically using a narrative synthesis approach. These results were used to develop a conceptual framework that describes and classifies SPITs.Results232 articles were reviewed for data extraction and analysis. SPITs identified were classified into 3 groups: clinical mapping tools, structure communication tools and error reduction instruments. The dominant instrument reported were clinical mapping tools, including: clinical pathways (113, 48%), fast track (46, 20%) and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols (36, 15%). Outcomes reported included: length of stay (174, 75%), readmission rates (116, 50%), morbidity (116, 50%), mortality (104, 45%), and economic (60, 26%). Many gaps in the literature were recognized.ConclusionWe have developed a conceptual framework of SPITs and identified gaps in current knowledge. These results will guide the design and development of new quality instruments in surgery.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.