Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18491068›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2008

[Documentation in psychiatry and psychotherapy: prerequisites and clinical practice].

H Spiessl, H Hausner, G Hajak, C Cording

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

H SpiesslKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie, Universität am Bezirksklinikum Regensburg, Universitätsstrasse 84, 93053, Regensburg, Deutschland. hermann.spiessl@medbo.de
H Hausner
G Hajak
C Cording

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs a result of changes to the legal and economic framework over the past years, medical documentation has changed substantially.

methodsBased on a literature search of important medicolegal studies and appeal decisions, an overview is given of legal principles and their practical consequences, especially for the fields of psychiatry and psychotherapy.

resultsDocumentation is a contractual and crime-related duty arising from the professional code for doctors and the legal obligation to provide documentation. In addition to being a memory aide for the doctor, its purposes are to safeguard and justify the treatment and to provide legal evidence. The documentation should be provided in a format that is sufficiently clear for specialist staff, using keywords, possibly handwritten, and use contemporary terminology. All important diagnostic and therapeutic measures must be documented. This is particularly important when the treatment deviates from standard treatment and in medical procedures aiming to protect the patient.

conclusionsThe legal requirements for documentation are becoming more stringent. The time spent on such activities has so far not been reimbursed by the financing bodies.

Indexed as

DocumentationGermanyHumansMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPsychiatryPsychotherapy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.