{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023593466424682397, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015426497277676952, 'mean_word_length': 5.981012658227848, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing electronic recording with a diagrammatic template versus traditional handwritten recording of tympanomastoid procedures: third audit cycle of 95 cases

Abstract Background: The middle ear and mastoid are complex three-dimensional structures and therefore tympanomastoid procedures require detailed documentation. Traditional written accounts can be inaccurate and difficult to interpret. Methods: This audit of 95 patients compares the completion of essential operative details using: an all-electronic version of a standardised proforma with a diagrammatic template, a non-electronic version with a diagrammatic template, and a traditional handwritten template. Results: The electronic template resulted in 81 per cent of essential operative items being recorded, compared to 78 per cent (p = 0.3) with a previous non-electronic template and 50 per cent (p = 0.0004) when using simple handwritten recording. Conclusion: An electronic proforma with a diagrammatic template improves the documentation and interpretation of tympanomastoid procedures compared to traditional handwritten records.