Variability in Communication and Reporting Practices Between Gastroenterologists and General Surgeons Contributes to Repeat Preoperative Endoscopy for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons commonly repeat preoperative endoscopy before planned colorectal resections. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, and repeat endoscopy may lead to delays in curative resection, increased costs, and patient discomfort. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine practice patterns, localization techniques, and processes of communication undertaken by endoscopy specialists in a high-volume regional health authority. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study involving standardized, semi-structured, in-depth interviews that were conducted in person. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at Canadian tertiary and community facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Ten general surgeons and 10 gastroenterologists were included using a convenience sampling technique. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interview questions were developed to understand the perspectives and practice patterns of endoscopists when approaching patients diagnosed with colorectal lesions requiring surgical resection. The decision-making process to perform a repeat preoperative endoscopy was assessed. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: 1) patterns of communication, 2) feedback, and 3) trust. Thematic analysis revealed that poor communication and ambiguous documentation increased the likelihood of performing repeat preoperative endoscopy. Inconsistencies in tattooing practices and lesion location were important factors. Negative experiences and factors related to interprofessional trust emerged as key contributors to repeat preoperative endoscopy. LIMITATIONS: The transferability of findings to health care systems outside Canada may be limited and requires further study. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal endoscopic reporting contributes to gaps in communication among endoscopists. In addition, lack of consistent feedback and mutual trust may increase the likelihood of performing repeat preoperative lower endoscopy. Inconsistent tattooing practices pose significant concerns for accurate intraoperative lesion localization. Establishing collaborative work environments through joint educational initiatives may enhance communication and mitigate unnecessary repeat procedures. These results support the need for standardized guidelines and endoscopic reporting in the management of colorectal lesions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B879 . LA VARIABILIDAD EN LAS PRCTICAS DE COMUNICACIN Y PRESENTACIN DE INFORMES ENTRE GASTROENTERLOGOS Y CIRUJANOS GENERALES CONTRIBUYE A REPETIR LA ENDOSCOPIA PREOPERATORIA PARA LAS NEOPLASIAS COLORRECTALES UN ANLISIS CUALITATIVO: ANTECEDENTES:Los cirujanos suelen repetir la endoscopia preoperatoria antes de las resecciones colorrectales planificadas. Las razones de esto no están del todo claras y la repetición de la endoscopia puede provocar retrasos en la resección curativa, aumento de los costos y malestar del paciente.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue determinar patrones de práctica, técnicas de localización y procesos de comunicación realizados por especialistas en endoscopia, en una autoridad sanitaria regional, de alto volumen.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio cualitativo, que involucró entrevistas estandarizadas, semiestructuradas y en profundidad que se llevaron a cabo en persona. Los datos se analizaron mediante un enfoque de análisis temático.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se llevó a cabo en instalaciones comunitarias y terciarias canadienses.PARTICIPANTES:Se incluyeron 10 cirujanos generales y 10 gastroenterólogos, utilizando una técnica de muestreo por conveniencia.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Las preguntas de la entrevista se desarrollaron para comprender las perspectivas y los patrones de práctica de los endoscopistas, cuando se acercan a pacientes diagnosticados con lesiones colorrectales que requieren resección quirúrgica. Se evaluó el proceso de toma de decisiones para realizar una nueva endoscopia preoperatoria.RESULTADOS:Surgieron tres temas clave: 1) patrones de comunicación, 2) retroalimentación y 3) confianza. El análisis temático reveló que la pobre comunicación y la ambigua documentación aumentaron la probabilidad de realizar una nueva endoscopia preoperatoria. Las inconsistencias en las prácticas de tatuaje y la ubicación de las lesiones fueron factores importantes. Las experiencias pasadas negativas y los factores relacionados con la confianza interprofesional surgieron como contribuyentes clave para repetir la endoscopia preoperatoria.LIMITACIONES:La transferibilidad de los hallazgos a los sistemas de atención médica fuera de Canadá, puede ser limitada y requiere más estudios.CONCLUSIONES:Los informes endoscópicos subóptimos contribuyen a las brechas en la comunicación entre los endoscopistas. Además, la falta de retroalimentación consistente y la confianza mutua pueden aumentar la probabilidad de realizar una nueva endoscopia baja preoperatoria. Las prácticas inconsistentes de tatuaje, plantean preocupaciones importantes para la localización precisa de las lesiones intraoperatorias. El establecimiento de entornos de trabajo colaborativo a través de iniciativas educativas conjuntas pueden mejorar la comunicación y mitigar la repetición de procedimientos innecesarios. Estos resultados apoyan la necesidad de pautas estandarizadas e informes endoscópicos en el tratamiento de las lesiones colorrectales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B879 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Advancement in the quality of operative documentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of synoptic versus narrative operative reporting.

BACKGROUND: The operative report is vital for patients and central to surgical quality assessment. Narrative operative reports are often poor quality. Synoptic reporting can improve documentation. The objective was to identify and appraise studies comparing synoptic and narrative operative reporting. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the literature was performed. The primary outcome was completion of critical elements for an operative report. Additional secondary outcomes were measured. Meta-analysis was performed where possible. Quality analysis was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: 1471 citations were identified; 16 studies included. Mean NOS was 7.09 out of 9 (+/-- SD 1.73). Meta-analysis demonstrated that synoptic reporting was significantly more complete (SMD 1.70, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.26; I2 98%). Completion time was shorter with synoptic reporting (mean difference -0.86, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.55). Secondary outcomes favoured synoptic reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Synoptic reporting platforms outperform narrative reporting and should be incorporated into surgical practice.