ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Facts and figures on medical record management from a multi super specialty hospital in Delhi NCR: A descriptive analysis.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aim of studyA study of the medical records department of a multi super specialty secondary care hospital in NCR. MATERIALS AND
methodsPrimary data was collected through direct observation and retrospective study of documents maintained in MRD. Secondary data was collected from quality control department books, journals, scholarly articles, and internet. RESULTS AND
conclusionSample sizes of 350 retrospective and current medical records were thoroughly scrutinized. Conclusion revealed the hospital has published as exhaustive medical records manual listing and the scope, objective, hierarchy chart, job description, policies, procedures, and processes. The MRD has a well-documented flow process of medical records, but on checking the flow of patient records between Nov 2016 to Feb 2017; it was revealed that in month of Nov 2016, out of the total 278 patients discharged only 276 files were received in MRD and 0.72% files were not received. Moreover, it took over 31 days for 71 patients (23.67%) to receive files in MRD. In Jan 2017, out of 286 patients discharged, only 237 files were received in MRD contrasting to 10.14% files not received. Moreover, it took over 31 days for 28 patients (9.80%) to receive files in MRD. In Feb 2017, out of 268 patients discharged, only 206 files were received in MRD and 22.39% files were not received as on 11 March 2017. This study concluded that there is no effective system in place to monitor/track files from ward/billing section to MRD once the patient is discharged. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Medical records are valuable to patients, physicians, healthcare institutions, researchers, National Health agencies, and International health organizations. Memories fade, people lie, witnesses die; however, medical records live forever. A thorough system of flow process of monitoring/tracking files is to be in place to ensure accountability, smooth functioning, and quality of care being provided without violating basic patient sight of confidentiality of information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.