ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022
Documentation of chaperone presence in breast clinic, a complete audit cycle.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chaperone in breast examination: a comprehensive systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives, and documentation.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Pooled it
- Sustainable quality improvement interventions to ensure adequate physician documentation of chaperone presence in breast clinic: a multicycle clinical audit.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe General Medical Council (GMC) and Irish Medical Council (IMC) recommend the presence of a chaperone for all intimate examinations and that it should be clearly documented. The aim of this report is to assess doctors' compliance with obtaining a chaperone and documenting their presence, determining possible causes of non-compliance and implement interventions to increase compliance.
methodsProspective audit of patients seen in the breast clinic in Beaumont hospital over the week starting 8th February 2021. The medical charts were reviewed for documentation of chaperone presence. Doctors were surveyed using (SurveyMonkey) for causes of non-compliance. Interventions included a stamp in the medical notes for chaperone presence and details, an educational email with GMC and IMC guidelines, and posters put up in clinic rooms. The intervention was reassessed at 1-week and 6-week intervals.
resultsIn the assessment phase, 126 patients were recruited. A chaperone was present 100% of the time where a male doctor examined a female patient; however, chaperone presence was not documented in any of the medical charts (0/126). A survey was sent to 22 breast surgery doctors to explore causes of non-compliance. Response rate was 95%, 50% did not know documentation was necessary, and 25% forgot to document. One week after intervention, 64 patients were recruited. Chaperone documentation increased to 80% (51/64). Reassessment at six weeks included 120 patients, and chaperone documentation rate was 74% (89/120).
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.