Vol. 22 No. 3, December 2014
Letters to the Editor 445
Audit of operation notes in an orthopaedic unit To the Editor: In the article by Sweed et al.,1 could the authors please comment on the following: 1. The authors stated that “Documentation was good for date and time of surgery (100%), name of surgeon (100%), procedure (100%), duration of surgery (94%), operative diagnosis (92%), incision details (84%), and signature (84%). Documentation was poor for tourniquet time (32%)—a pneumatic tourniquet was used in 25 patients (only 8 uses were documented), for closure details (16%), and for postoperative instructions (24%).” What were the factors responsible for documentation rates of
Letters to the Editor 445
Audit of operation notes in an orthopaedic unit To the Editor: In the article by Sweed et al.,1 could the authors please comment on the following: 1. The authors stated that “Documentation was good for date and time of surgery (100%), name of surgeon (100%), procedure (100%), duration of surgery (94%), operative diagnosis (92%), incision details (84%), and signature (84%). Documentation was poor for tourniquet time (32%)—a pneumatic tourniquet was used in 25 patients (only 8 uses were documented), for closure details (16%), and for postoperative instructions (24%).” What were the factors responsible for documentation rates of
