ArticleCureus2022
Comparison of Digital Versus Conventional Documentation of Ward Round in Terms of Staff Satisfaction, Effect on Education, and Adherence to British Orthopaedic Association Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to Improve Patient Care on Surgical Ward Rounds: A Systematic Review.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Improving ward round documentation using theBMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Connected Healthcare System Technology Interventions to Improve Patient Safety by Reducing Medical Errors: A Systematic Review.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To compare the role of paper-based versus digital record keeping in the orthopaedic ward in terms of staff satisfaction, education of staff, and adherence to British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) guidelines. Materials and methods Forty-four participants including nurses, senior house officers, foundation year trainees, and consultants completed a questionnaire. The first survey was done to introduce electronic records keeping to the participants and the second survey was conducted to review the collected record. Three parameters were assessed, which were adherence to BOA guidelines, staff satisfaction, and effect of education for both paper-based and electronic records. Comparison between two methods of record keeping was done by independent t-test for continuous data and chi-square test for categorical. Results For all four questions about staff satisfaction, the score of the electronic method was higher than paperwork statistically. The score for 'opportunity to learn images in ward round' was higher in electronic (3.9±0.8) than paperwork (2.6±1.3) statistically (p<0.001). Comparable results were found for 'educational usefulness of ward round' and 'typing time affecting learning time'. For adherence to guidelines, the electronic record keeping was more effective in storing the patient's ID and name (p=0.05), details of documenting clinician (p<0.001), time of ward round ((p=0.005), whom to contact in case of concern (p=0.050), and grade of ward round clinician (<0.001). Conclusion Electronic records in the orthopaedic ward were deemed better than paperwork in terms of staff satisfaction, positive effect on the education of doctors, and adherence to BOA guidelines.
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.