Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31058038›Full record

ArticleCureus2019

Preoperative Patient Preparation Audit: Completed Loop Cycle.

M N Baig, Conor Keady, Sandra O'Malley, C M Hurley, Evelyn Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

M N BaigOrthopaedics, University Hospital Galway, Galway, IRL.
Conor KeadyOrthopaedics, University Hospital Galway, Galway, IRL.
Sandra O'MalleyOrthopaedics, University Hospital Galway, Galway, IRL.
C M HurleyPlastic Surgery, University Hospital Galway, Galway, IRL.
Evelyn MurphyOrthopedics, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital, Dublin, IRL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Nurses usually check patients scheduled for surgery while the patients are still in the ward. A lack of complete preoperative patient preparation can cause delayed care and disastrous outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the number of patients en route to surgery who had been fully preoperatively prepared and evaluate any change in that number once a proforma was introduced as part of the preparation protocol. Methods We conducted a two-part audit of preoperative preparedness to assess factors such as up-to-date blood work, group and save, cross-match, and surgical site marking, among others. We then devised a proforma to be signed and checked by the ward doctor (e.g., intern or senior house officer). We compared the number of patients marked completely ready for surgery in the six weeks prior to use of the proforma with the number of patients marked completely ready for surgery for six weeks after implementation of the proforma. Results The study included the preoperative audit of 35 patients prior to the use of the proforma and 30 patients after the implementation of the proforma. Use of the proforma improved preoperative patient preparation by 50% compared to the level of preparedness when no proforma was used. Conclusion Health care facilities may benefit from a similar proforma for supplementing standardized, widely accepted preoperative protocols as an additional safety measure.

Indexed as

checklistpre-operative

Identifiers

PMID31058038
PMCPMC6488341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.