The quality of online patient-orientated information relevant to general and vascular surgery: A systematic review of cross-sectional studies

Abstract

s / International Journal of Surgery 23 (2015) S15eS134 S72 0379: THE QUALITY OF ONLINE PATIENT-ORIENTATED INFORMATION RELEVANT TO GENERAL AND VASCULAR SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES M. Sdobnikovs, L. Brown, A. Sureshkumar, A. Jawed, K. Patel, S. Shantikumar. University of Warwick, UK Aim: Many studies have assessed the quality of online information relating to general and vascular surgery, but there has been no systematic evaluation of this evidence. We performed a systematic review of studies evaluating the quality of patient-orientated online information relevant to general and vascular surgery. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, up to December 2014, for studies that browsed the web for information on gastrointestinal or vascular surgical conditions and evaluated at least one aspect of the quality of retrieved websites. Search results were screened independently by two authors, with good interobserver reliability (k 1⁄4 0.84). Results: Of 1731 citations screened, 20 were included. These evaluated 1771 webpages relevant to general or vascular surgery. The most frequently assessed aspects were accuracy of information (n 1⁄4 15, 75%), readability (n 1⁄4 6, 30%) and completeness of information (n 1⁄4 5, 25%). Although there was large heterogeneity in the criteria used to assess website quality, 16 studies (80%) suggested that the overall quality of information on the web was inadequate. Conclusion: Systematic evaluation across a range of surgical conditions found a high prevalence of inaccurate, incomplete information online. Surgeons should be aware that patients may be reading misleading information, and consider signposting them to more appropriate reading material. 0382: A LOCAL AUDIT ON THE CONTENT AND QUALITY OF OPERATION NOTES USING THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS' GUIDELINES T. Constandinou, L. Ogunsanya, M. Joshi, C. Hathaway, H. Davies. Brighton and Sussex University Hospital, UK Aim: The Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) has produced clear guidelines for the required content of operation notes. The quality of surgical operation notes in a busy trauma centre was audited against these standards. Methods: A local retrospective audit was carried out over a six-week period. A proforma based on the RCS guidelines was used for data collection. Fifty sets of general surgical operation notes were randomly selected. To minimise bias, data that involved doctors participating in the audit were excluded. Results: None of the operation notes sampled fully complied with the RCS guidelines. The date of the operation was the best documented (98% compliance). Time of operation and CEPOD category were poorly documented (22% and 33% respectively), whilst only 68% of the notes were deemed legible. Conclusion: The quality of the operation notes sampled was well below the standard set by the RCS. Many trainees were not aware of existing guidelines. The RCS guidelines and these findings have been presented to the surgical department. Standardised proformas have been designed and a re-audit is currently in progress. We recommend that our surgical colleagues consider carrying out a similar audit where appropriate. 0464: THE RETRIEVABLE INFERIOR VENA CAVA FILTER: A SINGLE CENTRE STUDY S. Seewoonarain. Princess Alexandra Hospital, UK Aim: Retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filters offer an increasingly popular method of anti-coagulation in a subset of patients with contraindications to pharmacological anti-coagulants as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). It is advised that the temporary filter should be removed in order to avoid complications including occlusion, deep vein thrombosis, IVC penetration and filter migration. Manufacturing guidelines vary but most modern retrievable filters suggest removal at up to six months. The aim of this study was to assess the proportion of patients that undergo attempted retrieval of temporary IVC filters as planned at the time of insertion and the likelihood of retrieval. Methods: This was a retrospective, single-centre study conducted over seven years, investigating the efficacy and success rate of removing the retrievable filter. Results: During a seven year period, a total of 40 patients (18 male, 22 female) underwent successful placement of retrievable filters. 23 patients (57.5%) had retrieval planned at the time of insertion. 5 patients (21.2%) had successful retrieval as planned. Conclusion: Despite the increased use of the retrievable filter, the opportunity for retrieval is low. The question remains as to how best follow up patients to ensure timely removal of temporary filters. 0474: PATIENTS' AND SURGEONS' OPINIONS OF WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT PATIENT EXPERIENCE IN OUTPATIENT CLINICS A. Seager, M. Bukhari. University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Trust,