ArticleCVIR endovascular2020
Audit of electronic operative documentation in interventional radiology: the value of standardised proformas.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOn the background of the interventional radiology department of a tertiary hospital converting its periprocedural documentation from paper-based to electronic using a standardised proforma, a study was performed to ascertain the effects of this change on the standard of clinical documentation for radiologically-guided angiographic procedures. Using a retrospective approach, perioperative records were analysed in reverse chronological order for inclusion in the study. The standard for this audit was developed in the form of minimum criteria that all clinical documentation of angiographic procedures were expected to meet.
resultsThe audit was performed at three equally spaced intervals of 6 months, yielding a total of 99 records. The baseline audit of paper-based records concluded > 80% completeness for 8 out of the 14 of parameters measured, with only two of parameters meeting the target of 100% completeness. The second audit cycle performed on electronic records found 7 out of 14 parameters demonstrating absolute improvement in completeness, when compared to paper-based, but with the number of parameters exceeding 80% completeness falling to only 4 out of 14. Again, 100% completeness was observed in only 2 of the parameters. In the final audit cycle, after the introduction of a standardised electronic proforma, performance improved in every dimension with 6 out of 14 parameters reaching completeness of 100% and the 80% completeness threshold met by 12 out of 14 parameters.
conclusionThe construction of a procedure-specific perioperative electronic proforma can save clinicians valuable time and encourage safe and effective clinical documentation.
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.