Quality assessment of medical record as a tool for clinical risk management: a three year experience of a teaching hospital Policlinico Umberto I, Rome

Introduction: The medical record was defined by the Italian Ministry of Health in 1992 as "the information tool designed to record all relevant demographic and clinical information on a patient during a single hospitalization episode". Retrospective analysis of medical records is a tool for selecting direct and indirect indicators of critical issues (organizational, management and technical). The project’s aim being the promotion of an evaluation and self-evaluation process of medical records as a Clinical Risk Management tool to improve the quality of care within hospitals. Methods: The Authors have retrospectively analysed, using a validated grid, 1,184 medical records of patients admitted to the Teaching Hospital “Umberto I” in Rome during a three-year period (2013-2015). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows © 19:00. All duly filled out criteria (92) were examined. “Strengths” and "Weaknesses" were identified through data analysis and Best and Bad Practice were identified based on established criteria. Conclusion: The data analysis showed marked improvements (statistically significant) in the quality of evaluated clinical documentation and indirectly upon behaviour. However, when examining some sub-criteria, critical issues emerge; these could be subject to future further corrective action

Prospective randomized trial comparing high lumbotomic with laparotomic access in renal cell carcinoma surgery

OBJECTIVE: We compared laparotomic with lumbotomic access in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) surgery by means of a prospective randomized trial, in order to evaluate differences in surgical time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes removed, duration of postoperative ileus and hospitalization, perioperative complications and progression-free and cancer-specific survival rates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between November 1991 and November 1996, 94 patients with RCC were recruited and randomly assigned to undergo surgery by lumbotomic (n = 50) or laparotomic (n = 44) access. All patients underwent radical nephrectomy and lymph node dissection. RESULTS: The mean surgical time was 59.1 min (range 20-140 min) and 84.4 min (range 40-180 min) for lumbotomic and laparotomic access, respectively (p < 0.01). Blood loss was 502 ml (range 200-1800 ml) for lumbotomic and 648 ml (range 200-2000 ml) for laparotomic access (p < 0.005). Mean hospital stay was 6.8 days (range 3-13 days) for lumbotomic and 8.2 days (range 5-15 days) for laparotomic access (p < 0.001). The perioperative complication rates were 6.1% and 13.6% for lumbotomic and laparotomic access, respectively. After a mean follow-up period of 7.5 years, cancer-specific and progression-free survival rates were 88% and 75%, respectively for lumbotomic and 88% and 72.7%, respectively for laparotomic access (p = NS). Multivariate analysis of risk factors showed that pathological stage was the best prognostic indicator of tumor progression, while other variables (age, tumor grade, surgical access, tumor size and incidental diagnosis of tumor) were not predictive of the prognosis of patients with RCC. CONCLUSIONS: During radical nephrectomy, control of the renal vessels is easier and faster with high lumbotomic access. The suggested risk of tumor cell spread due to manipulation of the kidney before vessel ligature was not confirmed in our study. Because of the shorter surgical time, lower blood loss, lower perioperative and late complication rates and shorter hospital stay involved, lumbotomic access should be preferred to laparotomic access in radical nephrectomy for RCC