Article Sidebar
Published:
May 19, 2006Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
Material submitted for publication in the South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecologyl (SAJOG) is accepted provided it has not been published elsewhere. Copyright forms will be sent with acknowledgement of receipt and the SAJOG reserves copyright of the material published.
The SAJOG does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Main Article Content
Is the data quality of current theatre information systems satisfactory to monitor individual surgeons' activity? : postgraduate training
Abstract
Objective: To compare data collection in two theatre log systems to assess usefulness for monitoring an individual surgeon's activity.
Design: A retrospective study of a handwritten theatre logbook and a computerised data collection system (Galaxy).
Setting: Gynaecology theatres in a district general hospital in the UK.
Sample: All abdominal hysterectomies over a consecutive 12-month period.
Results: 299 abdominal hysterectomies were recorded in the handwritten log and 298 were recorded on the Galaxy system. Four cases were identified in the handwritten log that did not appear in the Galaxy system, and 3 cases appeared in the Galaxy system that did not appear in the handwritten log. In 2 cases there was a major discrepancy between recordings of the operation undertaken. In 47 cases (16%) a different primary surgeon was recorded.
Conclusion: Retrospective collection of cases from both the computerised theatre log and the handwritten log have multiple inaccuracies limiting their usefulness to monitor an individual surgeon's activity as an individual logbook.
South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Vol. 12(1) 2006: 36-37
Design: A retrospective study of a handwritten theatre logbook and a computerised data collection system (Galaxy).
Setting: Gynaecology theatres in a district general hospital in the UK.
Sample: All abdominal hysterectomies over a consecutive 12-month period.
Results: 299 abdominal hysterectomies were recorded in the handwritten log and 298 were recorded on the Galaxy system. Four cases were identified in the handwritten log that did not appear in the Galaxy system, and 3 cases appeared in the Galaxy system that did not appear in the handwritten log. In 2 cases there was a major discrepancy between recordings of the operation undertaken. In 47 cases (16%) a different primary surgeon was recorded.
Conclusion: Retrospective collection of cases from both the computerised theatre log and the handwritten log have multiple inaccuracies limiting their usefulness to monitor an individual surgeon's activity as an individual logbook.
South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Vol. 12(1) 2006: 36-37
