Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35781840›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2022

Can Checklists Solve Our Ward Round Woes? A Systematic Review.

Ellie C Treloar, Ying Yang Ting, Joshua G Kovoor, Jesse D Ey, Jessica L Reid, Guy J Maddern

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ellie C TreloarCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Ying Yang TingDiscipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Joshua G KovoorDiscipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Jesse D EyDiscipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Jessica L ReidDiscipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia.
Guy J MaddernDiscipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Road, Woodville, SA, 5011, Australia. guy.maddern@adelaide.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate and thorough surgical ward round documentation is crucial for maintaining quality clinical care. Accordingly, checklists have been proposed to improve ward round documentation. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the literature investigating the use of checklists to improve surgical ward round documentation.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched on August 16, 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed in duplicate. We included English studies that investigated the use of checklists during ward rounds in various surgical subspecialties compared to routine care, where the rates of documentation were reported as outcomes. We excluded studies that used checklists in outpatient, non-surgical, or pediatric settings. Due to heterogeneity of outcome measures, meta-analysis was precluded. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021273735) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020) reporting guidelines.

resultsA total of 206 studies were identified, only 9 were suitable for inclusion. All included studies were single-center observational studies, spanning across seven surgical specialties. Rates of documentation on 4-23 parameters were reported. Documentation for all measured outcomes improved in 8/9 studies; however, statistical analyses were not included. There was a high risk of bias due to the nature of observational studies.

conclusionWard round checklists can serve as a useful tool to improve inpatient care and safety. Currently, there is no high-level evidence showing the effectiveness of checklists on ward round documentation. The synthesis of results indicates that further high-quality research is imperative.

Indexed as

ChecklistTeaching RoundsBiasChildHospitalsHumansOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID35781840
PMCPMC9436887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.