ArticlePloS one2021
How to assure the quality of clinical records? A 7-year experience in a large academic hospital.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Quality of process records in the surgical area and possible consequences for patient safety].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Article
- Assessment of the quality of oral squamous cell carcinoma clinical records in oral surgery with Surgical Tool for Auditing Records (STAR) scoring.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Interns' Perceived Level of Proficiency After General Surgery Rotation: A Cross-Sectional Study From Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical record (CR) is the primary tool used by healthcare workers (HCWs) to record clinical information and its completeness can help achieve safer practices. CR is the most appropriate source in order to measure and evaluate the quality of care. In order to achieve a safety climate is fundamental to involve a responsive healthcare workforce thorough peer-review and feedbacks. This study aims to develop a peer-review tool for clinical records quality assurance, presenting the seven-year experience in the evolution of it; secondary aims are to describe the CR completeness and HCWs' diligence toward recording information in it.
methodsTo assess the completeness of CRs a peer-review tool was developed in a large Academic Hospital of Northern Italy. This tool included measurable items that examined different themes, moments and levels of the clinical process. Data were collected every three months between 2010 and 2016 by appointed and trained HCWs from 42 Units; the hospital Quality Unit was responsible for of processing and validating them. Variations in the proportion of CR completeness were assessed using Cochran-Armitage test for trends.
resultsA total of 9,408 CRs were evaluated. Overall CR completeness improved significantly from 79.6% in 2010 to 86.5% in 2016 (p<0.001). Doctors' attitude showed a trend similar to the overall completeness, while nurses improved more consistently (p<0.001). Most items exploring themes, moments and levels registered a significant improvement in the early years, then flattened in last years. Results of the validation process were always above the cut-off of 75%.
conclusionsThis peer-review tool enabled the Quality Unit and hospital leadership to obtain a reliable picture of CRs completeness, while involving the HCWs in the quality evaluation. The completeness of CR showed an overall positive and significant trend during these seven years.
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.