Intraoperative Consultation-Related Documentation: A Three-Year Quality Improvement Audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThis study evaluates the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving compliance with intraoperative consultation (IOC) documentation standards within the health system in Manitoba, Canada.MethodsA quality improvement study assessed IOC documentation quality within Shared Health Manitoba system. Audits of 60 consecutive IOC cases (specimens) annually (2021-2023) evaluated frozen section (FS) requisitions, final pathology reports, and quality assurance (QA) review entries. Interventions included education sessions, email reminders, posters, and a trial of checklist stickers, though the latter was unsuccessful. Statistical analyses assessed documentation trends.ResultsInterventions led to some significant but inconsistent improvements. Overall documentation completeness improved in IOC requisitions from 2021 to 2022 (p = 0.0245, 95% CI = 3.69, 38.16) but not in 2023. QA review entries also showed significant improvement in the second audit in 2022, but not in the third audit in 2023 (2021 vs 2022: 0.0327, although the 95% CI lower bound was slightly negative (-2.55, 19.05). No overall significant improvements were observed in final report IOC documentation.ConclusionTargeted interventions improved some IOC documentation aspects, but sustained success requires addressing systemic challenges through ongoing education and workflow optimization to enhance IOC-related documentation quality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".