Fellow and Attending Surgeon Operative Notes are Deficient in Reporting Established Quality Indicators for Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Preliminary Retrospective Analysis of Operative Dictation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Surgeons must dictate the important components of any invasive procedure in a comprehensive, yet concise, operative report. This documentation is vital for communicating operative events and has implications for providing additional healthcare and planning future operations. The quality of surgical care may be impaired in the absence of such communication. Evidence suggests that the quality of reports dictated by trainees and surgeons is poor despite its importance. This investigation analyzed and compared the quality of fellow and staff surgeon Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) narrative dictations against validated and reliable quality indicators (QIs) for this procedure. Methods A total of 40 bariatric fellow reports and 40 attending RYGB narrative reports were retrospectively analyzed. Results Fellows had a mean completion of 66.4% +/- 3.1% as compared to 61.5% +/- 7.6% for attendings (p<0.0001). Fellows statistically outperformed attendings on all subsections except patient, closure, and postoperative details. Attendings statistically outperformed fellows on closure details only (63.8 +/- 7.5 vs 50.5 +/- 12.0, p=0.002). Conclusions Bariatric surgery trainees outperform attending surgeons in RYGB operative dictation. The clinical significance of this difference is unknown. However, both groups are deficient in reporting at least one-third of items deemed essential to RYGB operative reporting. This indicates a need for further education in RYGB dictation for practicing surgeons and trainees. It also lends interest in exploring alternative forms of operative communication such as synoptic operative reporting in bariatric surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".