ArticleCureus2022
A Three-Step System to Ensure Correct Attribution of Named Clinicians for Inpatients.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Francis report recommends that all patients admitted into a UK hospital must have a named identifiable and suitably trained consultant or clinician in charge of their care. This is regarded as a shared responsibility as highlighted by the recommendations made by the General Medical Council Best Practice guidance. However, this can become more error-prone, particularly in acute trauma and orthopaedic inpatients when the named consultant may change numerous times.
methodsWe conducted an audit reviewing all the inpatients in the acute trauma and orthopaedic wards and then reaudited twice following the introduction of the three-step system. The results were then analysed and compared with previous cycle results.
resultsInitially following the introduction of the three-step system, there were poorer outcomes. Inpatients with the correct named consultant declined from 47% to 37%. However, following further education and training of each respective member of the multidisciplinary roles, the results were much improved with 88.9% of the inpatients having the correct named consultant.
conclusionsEnsuring that all inpatients have the correct named consultant is a shared responsibility amongst all health and social care staff involved with the patient. This audit highlights that attributing specific roles to relevant members of the multidisciplinary team can improve communications and patient care.
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.