Krzysztof Piwowarczyk, Ewelina Bartkowiak, Jadzia Chou, Katarzyna Kukawska, Ludwika Piwowarczyk, Małgorzata Wierzbicka
{"title":"The impact of accurate documentation of parotid tumor operative reports on secondary surgical procedure.","authors":"Krzysztof Piwowarczyk, Ewelina Bartkowiak, Jadzia Chou, Katarzyna Kukawska, Ludwika Piwowarczyk, Małgorzata Wierzbicka","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0014.6240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop a comprehensive operative report schema based on the accuracy of primary operative reports (OpR) assessed on a department's experience with parotid gland tumor re-operations.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A tertiary referral center, the Department of Otolaryngology and Laryngological Surgery, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poland from 2008 to 2017.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Out of 1154 surgeries, 71 patients underwent reoperation. Their OpR were categorized into accurate and non-accurate, and re-operation field and re-operation course were categorized as anticipated or unanticipated, according to defined criteria.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>None Main outcome measures: The impact of accuracy of the first OpR on re-operation course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this series, OpR were 39% (14/36) accurate, 61% (22/36) non-accurate. Re-operation fields were 16% (11/71) anticipated, 37% (26/71) unanticipated. Re-operation courses were 37% (26/71) anticipated, 63% (45/71) unanticipated. An anticipated re-operation course followed 20% (5/26) of accurate and 20% (5/26) of non-accurate primary OpR. An unanticipated re-operation course followed 20% (9/45) of accurate and 40% (18/45) of non-accurate OpR. There is no significant relationship between the re-operation course and accuracy of the first OpR (Chi2(1)=0.69; p=0.40466). The most common variable that affected non-accuracy of the OpR was facial nerve function after surgery (6/12).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The operative report should be based on clear criteria, robust classification and comprehensive protocol. This will improve follow-up and facilitate the planning of re-operation.</p>","PeriodicalId":42608,"journal":{"name":"Polish Journal of Otolaryngology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Journal of Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.6240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Objective: To develop a comprehensive operative report schema based on the accuracy of primary operative reports (OpR) assessed on a department's experience with parotid gland tumor re-operations.
Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study.
Setting: A tertiary referral center, the Department of Otolaryngology and Laryngological Surgery, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poland from 2008 to 2017.
Subjects: Out of 1154 surgeries, 71 patients underwent reoperation. Their OpR were categorized into accurate and non-accurate, and re-operation field and re-operation course were categorized as anticipated or unanticipated, according to defined criteria.
Intervention: None Main outcome measures: The impact of accuracy of the first OpR on re-operation course.
Results: In this series, OpR were 39% (14/36) accurate, 61% (22/36) non-accurate. Re-operation fields were 16% (11/71) anticipated, 37% (26/71) unanticipated. Re-operation courses were 37% (26/71) anticipated, 63% (45/71) unanticipated. An anticipated re-operation course followed 20% (5/26) of accurate and 20% (5/26) of non-accurate primary OpR. An unanticipated re-operation course followed 20% (9/45) of accurate and 40% (18/45) of non-accurate OpR. There is no significant relationship between the re-operation course and accuracy of the first OpR (Chi2(1)=0.69; p=0.40466). The most common variable that affected non-accuracy of the OpR was facial nerve function after surgery (6/12).
Conclusions: The operative report should be based on clear criteria, robust classification and comprehensive protocol. This will improve follow-up and facilitate the planning of re-operation.