ArticleEye (London, England)2021
The highs and lows of Medisoft as an audit tool: lessons from a 5-year upper eyelid ptosis audit.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2021. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing demand for surgeon accountability requires regular audit of individual and institutional performances. Electronic record systems proclaim efficient audit systems, but how does Medisoft live up to the hype? We present our experiences and examine how well Medisoft's audit suite meets clinical audit needs.
methodsMedisoft audit suite was used to audit all ptosis procedures undertaken during 2010-14 in Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Repeat audit identified all ptosis procedures done in the trust since Medisoft was introduced; these data were cross-referenced to determine true re-operation rates.
results350 operations were performed on 304 patients over 427 eyes in 5 years. 40 of 304 patients (13%) have thus far required more than one operation on at least one eye. Cross-referencing the data revealed that 11 of these patients' audit-period operations were re-operations, and 18 patients were re-operated after the audit period. In total 26/40 patients (65%) would have been missed if the data had not been cross-referenced. 17 patients had post-operative complications recorded, 7 of whom had repeat surgery.
conclusionsMedisoft supports high volume audits, reducing overall workload and increasing efficiency. However, consistent use across clinical staff is necessary to ensure all data are recorded and available for audit. When assessing re-operation rates, search parameters must be widened and cross-referenced to prevent missing vital information regarding procedures performed outside of the audit window. This could be eliminated in future if Medisoft made small changes to input of data that highlights repeat operations and their indications.
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.