Abstract
Accurate documentation is crucial in surgical patient care. Synoptic reports (SR) are structured checklist-based reports that offer a standardised alternative to traditional narrative reports (NR). This systematic review aims to assess the completeness of SR compared to NR in colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Secondary outcomes include the time to completion, surgeon satisfaction, educational value, research value, and barriers to implementation.
Prospective or retrospective studies that assessed SR compared to NR in colorectal cancer surgery procedures were identified through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), CIHNAL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), and Cochrane. One thousand two articles were screened, and eight studies met the inclusion criteria after full-text review of 17 papers.
Analysis included 1797 operative reports (NR, 729; SR, 1068). Across studies reporting this outcome, the completeness of documentation was significantly higher in SR (P < 0.001). Reporting of secondary outcomes was limited, with a predominant focus on research value. Several studies demonstrated significantly reduced data extraction times when utilising SR. Surgeon satisfaction with SR was high, and these reports were seen as valuable tools for research and education. Barriers to implementation included integrating SR into existing electronic medical records (EMR) and surgeon concerns regarding increased administrative burden.
SR offer advantages in completeness, data extraction, and communication compared to NR. Surgeons perceive them as beneficial for research, quality improvement, and teaching. This review supports the necessity for development of user-friendly SR that seamlessly integrate into pre-existing EMRs, optimising patient care and enhancing the quality of CRC surgical documentation.