# Adequacy of Operative Notes for Orthopaedic Procedures: A Quality Improvement Project

## TL;DR

This study shows that simple interventions like typed notes and checklists can improve the quality of surgical documentation.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that low-cost interventions can significantly improve operative note quality in orthopaedic procedures.

## Key findings

- Typed notes increased from 30% to 65% after interventions.
- Documentation of closure technique and signature completion reached 100% post-intervention.
- Modest improvements were seen in operative diagnosis and findings documentation.

## Abstract

Introduction: High-quality operative documentation is fundamental to safe patient care, supporting communication, guiding postoperative management, and serving as a medico-legal record. Despite its importance, variability in the quality and completeness of operative notes remains common.

Methods: A closed-loop audit was performed at University Hospital Crosshouse, United Kingdom. The first cycle reviewed 82 operative notes, assessing compliance with set standards. Interventions included encouragement to use typed instead of written operation notes, display of posters in theatres, and introduction of a structured post-operative checklist. A second cycle reviewed 84 notes post-intervention. Results between audit cycles were compared and analysed using chi-squared tests to evaluate the statistical significance of improvements.

Results: In Cycle 1, typed notes accounted for 25 (30%), with documentation of operative diagnosis in 53 (65%), operative findings in 60 (73%), closure technique in 73 (89%), and signature completion in 78 (95%). Estimated blood loss was recorded in only five (6%) notes, and prosthesis identification (where applicable) in 60 of 69 (87%). In Cycle 2, following the intervention, typed notes increased significantly to 55 (65%). Closure technique documentation improved to 84 (100%) and signature completion to 84 (100%). Modest improvements were found in documentation of operative diagnosis (n=62, 74%) and intra-operative findings (n=68, 81%). Prosthesis identification remained at 87% between audit cycles, and estimated blood loss documentation fell to 2 (2%).

Conclusion: Simple, low-cost interventions such as visible documentation standards, typed templates, and postoperative checklists produced meaningful improvements in legibility and completion of key operative note parameters. Sustaining and expanding these measures, particularly through electronic templates with mandatory data fields and ongoing audit cycles, could further enhance the accuracy, completeness, and medicolegal robustness of operative documentation within surgical practice