ArticleThe International journal of risk & safety in medicine2022
Improving the documentation of chaperones during intimate examinations in a surgical admissions unit: A four-stage approach.
Article in The International journal of risk & safety in medicine, 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe General Medical Council (GMC) states that all intimate examinations should have a chaperone offered. Documentation of chaperone identity, or patient's refusal, is essential.
objectiveThis project aimed to improve documentation of chaperones during intimate examination of patients based in a Surgical Admissions Unit (SAU) within a large tertiary hospital in the Southwest of the UK.
methodsA Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle structure was used. Initial data collection and planning occurred in December 2019. Intervention implementation and analysis occurred from January 2020 to March 2021. Intervention 1 involved presenting results at a clinical governance meeting. Intervention 2 was information posters in the SAU and intervention 3 involved training sessions for nursing staff. Intervention 4 was editing the surgical clerking proforma.
resultsPrior to interventions, chaperone identity or patient's refusal was correctly documented only 9.7% (N = 7 out of 72) of the time. Intervention 1 increased this to 34.6%. Following interventions 3 and 4, correct documentation was 25.0% and 28.6% respectively. After intervention 4 correct documentation was at 59.1%.
conclusionsInitial documentation of chaperones was poor. Interventions 1 to 3 were successful in educating clinicians how to document accurately, but engaging individuals in person was more successful than passive education through posters. Changing the proforma structure was the most successful intervention. This suggests a visual reminder for clinicians at the point of contact with the patient is the most effective way to encourage correct documentation of chaperones, improving patient care and clinical practice.
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.