American journal of surgery · 2010
The natural language of the surgeon's clinical note in outcomes assessment: a qualitative analysis of the medical record.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miller J Michael, Velanovich Vic
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Physician-generated clinical notes are the central document in recording the clinical decision-making and outcome of care. This is particularly true in an environment where outcomes assessment is becoming increasingly important. The hypothesis of this study is that these notes are inadequate to assess patient-centered outcomes and determine surgeons' core competencies.
METHODS: We preformed a retrospective review of postoperative clinical notes of general surgery patients for a 1-month period. Information from these notes underwent qualitative analysis using the reductionist thematic approach for patient-centered and physician-centered outcomes. Outcomes included 2 physician-centered items (physical examination and objective tests) and 3 patient-centered items (postoperative complications, functional status, and satisfaction). The presence or absence of each item in the clinical note was recorded.
RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-one patients of 18 general surgeons were included. Among the surgeons, 28% failed to document symptomatic change in even 1 patient; similarly, 67% failed to document functional change, and 50% failed to document satisfaction. Among all 681 clinical notes only 7% of records mentioned symptomatic change, 1% functional change, 87% physical examination, 26% objective tests, and 3% patient satisfaction. These results were not affected by procedure type or number of patients seen.
CONCLUSIONS: In general surgery practice, the surgeon's clinical note is a poor measure of physician-centered or patient-centered outcomes, implying that an audit of clinical notes would be an inaccurate method to assess patient outcomes. This has implications for issues surrounding maintenance of certification.
METHODS: We preformed a retrospective review of postoperative clinical notes of general surgery patients for a 1-month period. Information from these notes underwent qualitative analysis using the reductionist thematic approach for patient-centered and physician-centered outcomes. Outcomes included 2 physician-centered items (physical examination and objective tests) and 3 patient-centered items (postoperative complications, functional status, and satisfaction). The presence or absence of each item in the clinical note was recorded.
RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-one patients of 18 general surgeons were included. Among the surgeons, 28% failed to document symptomatic change in even 1 patient; similarly, 67% failed to document functional change, and 50% failed to document satisfaction. Among all 681 clinical notes only 7% of records mentioned symptomatic change, 1% functional change, 87% physical examination, 26% objective tests, and 3% patient satisfaction. These results were not affected by procedure type or number of patients seen.
CONCLUSIONS: In general surgery practice, the surgeon's clinical note is a poor measure of physician-centered or patient-centered outcomes, implying that an audit of clinical notes would be an inaccurate method to assess patient outcomes. This has implications for issues surrounding maintenance of certification.