Implementation of a Synoptic Operative Report for Rectal Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

Background: The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer is a collaborative effort to improve the quality of rectal cancer care, including multidisciplinary assessment, treatment planning, and documentation using synoptic radiology, pathology, and operative reports. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation and use of a synoptic operative report for rectal cancer. Design: This was a convergent mixed-methods implementation study of electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at US medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Colorectal surgeons were included. INTERVENTION: After development, the synoptic operative report was iteratively revised and ultimately approved by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Executive Council and the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer and then implemented into participants' institutional electronic medical record systems. Main Outcome Measures: Change in fidelity to documentation of 19 critical items after implementation of synoptic reports and in-depth details and perspectives about the synoptic operative report were measured. Results: Thirty-seven surgeons from 14 institutions submitted preimplementation operative reports (n = 180); 32 of 37 surgeons submitted postimplementation reports (n = 118). The operation type, approach, and formation of a stoma were present in >70% of preimplementation reports; however, the location of the tumor, the type of reconstruction, and the distal margin were reported in <50%. Each item was present in ≥89% of postimplementation reports. Twenty eight of 37 participants completed the survey, and 21 of 37 participants completed qualitative interviews. Emergent themes included concerns for additional burden and time constraints using the synoptic report themselves, as well as errors or absent information in traditional narrative operative reports of other surgeons. Limitations: The study was limited by its sample size, cross-sectional nature, specialized centers, and inclusion of colorectal surgeons only. Conclusions: Although fidelity to the 19 items substantially increased after implementation of the synoptic report, reactions to the synoptic report varied among surgeons. Many indicated concerns that it would hinder workflow or add extra time burden. Others felt the synoptic report could indirectly improve rectal cancer quality of care and provide useful data for quality improvement and research. More work is needed to update and improve the synoptic operative report and streamline the workflow.