Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:46:01.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing electronic recording with a diagrammatic template versus traditional handwritten recording of tympanomastoid procedures: third audit cycle of 95 cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2017

S Fang ,
A Habeeb ,
P Gluckman  and
R Kanegoankar
S Fang*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
A Habeeb
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
P Gluckman
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
R Kanegoankar
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Sean Fang, ENT Department, Medway Maritime Hospital, Windmill Rd, Gillingham ME7 5NY, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The middle ear and mastoid are complex three-dimensional structures and therefore tympanomastoid procedures require detailed documentation. Traditional written accounts can be inaccurate and difficult to interpret.

Methods:

This audit of 95 patients compares the completion of essential operative details using: an all-electronic version of a standardised proforma with a diagrammatic template, a non-electronic version with a diagrammatic template, and a traditional handwritten template.

Results:

The electronic template resulted in 81 per cent of essential operative items being recorded, compared to 78 per cent (p = 0.3) with a previous non-electronic template and 50 per cent (p = 0.0004) when using simple handwritten recording.

Conclusion:

An electronic proforma with a diagrammatic template improves the documentation and interpretation of tympanomastoid procedures compared to traditional handwritten records.

Keywords

Otological Surgical ProceduresOtolaryngologyTympanoplastyMyringoplasty
Type
Short Communication
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 5 , May 2017 , pp. 462 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Yung, M, Gjuric, M, Haeusler, R, Van de Heyning, PH, Martin, C, Swan, IR et al. An international otology database. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:1087–92Google Scholar
2 Kum, F, Kanegaonkar, R. Comparing diagrammatic recording versus traditional written account of tympanomastoid procedures: completion of a second audit cycle of 25 cases: our experience. Clin Otolaryngol 2015;40:266–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Maskell, S, Chong, D, Gluckman, P, Kanegoankar, R. Comparison of diagrammatic recording versus traditional written account of tympanomastoid procedures. The Otorhinolaryngologist 2011;3:102–3Google Scholar
4 Wasson, J, Kanegaonkar, R, Vaz, F, Thomas, J. How we do it: diagrammatic recording of tympanomastoid procedures. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:543–5Google Scholar