Medical record keeping and system performance in orthopaedic trauma patients
Filip Cosic A D , Lara Kimmel B C and Elton Edwards A CA Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Alfred, P.O. Box 315, Prahran, Vic. 3181, Australia. Email: ere@bigpond.net.au
B Department of Physiotherapy, The Alfred, P.O. Box 315, Prahran, Vic. 3181, Australia. Email: l.kimmel@alfred.org.au
C Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Vic. 3004, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: ftcos1@student.monash.edu
Australian Health Review 40(6) 619-624 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15160
Submitted: 25 August 2015 Accepted: 15 December 2015 Published: 18 February 2016
Abstract
Objective The medical record is critical for documentation and communication between healthcare professionals. The aim of the present study was to evaluate important aspects of the orthopaedic medical record and system performance to determine whether any deficiencies exist in these areas.
Methods Review of 200 medical records of surgically treated traumatic lower limb injury patients was undertaken. The operative report, discharge summary and first and second outpatient reviews were evaluated.
Results In all cases, an operative report was completed by a senior surgeon. Weight-bearing status was adequately documented in 91% of reports. Discharge summaries were completed for 82.5% of admissions, with 87.3% of these having instructions reflective of those in the operative report. Of first and second outpatient reviews, 69% and 73%, respectively, occurred within 1 week of the requested time. Previously documented management plans were changed in 30% of reviews. At 6-months post-operatively, 42% of patients had been reviewed by a member of their operating team.
Discussion Orthopaedic medical record documentation remains an area for improvement. In addition, hospital out-patient systems perform suboptimally and may affect patient outcomes.
What is known about the topic? Medical records are an essential tool in modern medical practice. Despite the importance of comprehensive documentation in the medical record, numerous examples of poor documentation have been demonstrated, including substandard documentation during consultant ward rounds by junior doctors leading to a breakdown in healthcare professional communication and potential patient mismanagement. Further inadequacies of medical record documentation have been demonstrated in surgical discharge notes, with complete and correct documentation reported to be as low as 65%.
What does this paper add? Standards of patient care should be constantly monitored and deficiencies identified in order to implement a remedy and close the quality loop. The present study has highlighted that the standard of orthopaedic trauma medical record keeping at an Australian Level 1 trauma centre is below what is expected and several key areas of documentation require improvement. This paper further evaluates the system performance of the out-patient system, an area where, to the authors knowledge, there is no previous work published. The findings show that the performance was below what is expected for surgical review, with many patients failing to be reviewed by their operating surgeon.
What are the implications for practitioners? The present study shows that there is a poor level of documentation and a standard of out-patient review below what is expected. The implications of these findings will be to highlight current deficiencies to practitioners and promote change in current practice to improve the quality of medical record documentation among medical staff. Further, the findings of poor system performance will promote change in the current system of delivering out-patient care to patients.
References
[1] Thomas J. Medical records and issues in negligence. Indian J Urol 2009; 25 384–8.| Medical records and issues in negligence.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19881136PubMed |
[2] Feather H, Morgan N. Risk management: role of the medical record department. Top Health Rec Manage 1991; 12 40–8.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK38%2FlsF2jsg%3D%3D&md5=4760ca192ac8aae394e6a4089e078d7cCAS | 10114765PubMed |
[3] Fernando KJ, Siriwardena AK. Standards of documentation of the surgeon–patient consultation in current surgical practice. Br J Surg 2001; 88 309–12.
| Standards of documentation of the surgeon–patient consultation in current surgical practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M7kt1Whtg%3D%3D&md5=c358dfc5b6328ae5f194bd214cf0e22cCAS | 11167887PubMed |
[4] Al-Mahrouqi H, Oumer R, Tapper R, Roberts R. Post-acute surgical ward round proforma improves documentation. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2013; 2
| Post-acute surgical ward round proforma improves documentation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26734192PubMed |
[5] Patel AG, Mould T, Webb PJ. Inadequacies of hospital medical records. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993; 75 7–9.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK3s7jsFGhsg%3D%3D&md5=edbb52767964bfb1e2b433866df48ab0CAS | 8422161PubMed |
[6] Tan EW, Ting BL, Jia X, Skolasky RL, McFarland EG. Diagnostic errors in orthopedic surgery: evaluation of resident documentation of neurovascular examinations for orthopedic trauma patients. Am J Med Qual 2013; 28 60–8.
| Diagnostic errors in orthopedic surgery: evaluation of resident documentation of neurovascular examinations for orthopedic trauma patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22798636PubMed |
[7] Cascio BM, Wilckens JH, Ain MC, Toulson C, Frassica FJ. Documentation of acute compartment syndrome at an academic health-care center. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 346–50.
| Documentation of acute compartment syndrome at an academic health-care center.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15687158PubMed |
[8] Kern DE, Harris WL, Boekeloo BO, Barker LR, Hogeland P. Use of an outpatient medical record audit to achieve educational objectives: changes in residents’ performances over six years. J Gen Intern Med 1990; 5 218–24.
| Use of an outpatient medical record audit to achieve educational objectives: changes in residents’ performances over six years.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK3c3lslOgsA%3D%3D&md5=bf6f37789ad904facd7bcc11c5ec90e9CAS | 2341921PubMed |
[9] World Health Organization (WHO). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision. Geneva: WHO; 2014.
[10] Edhemovic I, Temple WJ, de Gara CJ, Stuart GCE. The computer synoptic operative report: a leap forward in the science of surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2004; 11 941–7.
| The computer synoptic operative report: a leap forward in the science of surgery.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15466354PubMed |
[11] Singh R, Chauhan R, Anwar S. Improving the quality of general surgical operation notes in accordance with the Royal College of Surgeons guidelines: a prospective completed audit loop study. J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18 578–80.
| Improving the quality of general surgical operation notes in accordance with the Royal College of Surgeons guidelines: a prospective completed audit loop study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21210903PubMed |
[12] Shayah A, Agada FO, Gunasekaran S, Jassar P, England RJA. The quality of operative note taking: an audit using the Royal College of Surgeons Guidelines as the gold standard. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61 677–9.
| The quality of operative note taking: an audit using the Royal College of Surgeons Guidelines as the gold standard.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2s7pt12isw%3D%3D&md5=c8e3a4a3cb82029d6e634a228670d211CAS | 17394439PubMed |
[13] Baigrie RJ, Dowling BL, Birch D, Dehn TC. An audit of the quality of operation notes in two district general hospitals. Are we following Royal College guidelines? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994; 76 8–10.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK2c3ovVCltw%3D%3D&md5=dc1c4da8439d4d1505a98aa1b929a903CAS | 8017801PubMed |
[14] Bateman ND, Carney AS, Gibbin KP. An audit of the quality of operation notes in an otolaryngology unit. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999; 44 94–5.
| 1:STN:280:DyaK1M3ks1yiug%3D%3D&md5=8098b99c9dc104f2135b336f4a6d30d6CAS | 10230203PubMed |
[15] Din R, Jena D, Muddu BN, Jennna D. The use of an aide-memoire to improve the quality of operation notes in an orthopaedic unit. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2001; 83 319–20.
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FotVamsg%3D%3D&md5=7bc8a0ed1b5436aeee7573730ca42a03CAS | 11806555PubMed |
[16] Rogers BA, Pleat J. Is there adequate information on operation notes? The application of the Royal College of Surgeons of England guidelines. J Perioper Pract 2010; 20 339–42.
| 20954514PubMed |
[17] Shepperd S, Doll H, Broad J, Gladman J, Iliffe S, Langhorne P, Richards S, Martin F, Harris R. Hospital at home early discharge. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 1 CD000356
| Hospital at home early discharge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19160179PubMed |
[18] Luck J, Peabody JW, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M, Glassman P. How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record. Am J Med 2000; 108 642–9.
| How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3czhsFKrsg%3D%3D&md5=bfc3bdf0bb5d47912e18df733ade57ffCAS | 10856412PubMed |
[19] Bolton P, Mira M, Kennedy P, Lahra MM. The quality of communication between hospitals and general practitioners: an assessment. J Qual Clin Pract 1998; 18 241–7.
| The quality of communication between hospitals and general practitioners: an assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FnslCqtQ%3D%3D&md5=642b411e319759212af4491887c441d7CAS | 9862661PubMed |
[20] Callen JL, Alderton M, McIntosh J. Evaluation of electronic discharge summaries: a comparison of documentation in electronic and handwritten discharge summaries. Int J Med Inform 2008; 77 613–20.
| Evaluation of electronic discharge summaries: a comparison of documentation in electronic and handwritten discharge summaries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18294904PubMed |
[21] Mohta N, Vaishnava P, Liang C, Ye K, Vitale M, Dalal A, Schnipper J. The effects of a ‘discharge time-out’ on the quality of hospital discharge summaries. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21 885–90.
| The effects of a ‘discharge time-out’ on the quality of hospital discharge summaries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22562879PubMed |
[22] Soto CM, Kleinman KP, Simon SR. Quality and correlates of medical record documentation in the ambulatory care setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2002; 2 22
| Quality and correlates of medical record documentation in the ambulatory care setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 12473161PubMed |
[23] Edwards ST, Neri PM, Volk LA, Schiff GD, Bates DW. Association of note quality and quality of care: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 406–13.
| Association of note quality and quality of care: a cross-sectional study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24287259PubMed |
[24] Burke HB, Sessums LL, Hoang A, Becher DA, Fontelo P, Liu F, Stephens M, Pangaro LN, O’Malley PG, Baxi NS, Bunt CW, Capaldi VF, Chen JM, Cooper BA, Djuric DA, Hodge JA, Kane S, Magee C, Makary ZR, Mallory RM, Miller T, Saperstein A, Servey J, Gimbel RW. Electronic health records improve clinical note quality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 22 199–205.
| Electronic health records improve clinical note quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25342178PubMed |
[25] Gabbe BJ, Sleney JS, Gosling CM, Wilson K, Hart MJ, Sutherland AM, Christie N. Patient perspectives of care in a regionalised trauma system: lessons from the Victorian State Trauma System. Med J Aust 2013; 198 149–52.
| Patient perspectives of care in a regionalised trauma system: lessons from the Victorian State Trauma System.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23418695PubMed |
[26] McGain F, Cretikos MA, Jones D, Van Dyk S, Buist MD, Opdam H, Pellegrino V, Robertson MS, Bellomo R. Documentation of clinical review and vital signs after major surgery. Med J Aust 2008; 189 380–3.
| 18837681PubMed |
