ArticleCureus2022
A Standardized Ward Round Proforma Improves Documentation in a Specialist Stroke Unit.
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.
- Optimizing ward rounds: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to enhance patient safety.The British journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Vision screening in older adults who attend hospital following a fall: a scoping review.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Current status and advances in comprehensive treatment of acute ischemic stroke in China: from evidence-based guidelines to clinical practice.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim Ward-round documentation is important for clinical communication and patient safety. Standardized checklists have improved ward-round documentation in surgical and medical settings. This quality improvement project aimed to introduce a standardized ward round proforma to improve documentation in a UK specialist stroke unit. Methods Ward round entries were assessed against internally agreed standardized criteria. A stroke-specific ward round proforma was designed and introduced with input from the multidisciplinary team. A repeat audit was performed, including assessment of the use of different proforma sections. Multidisciplinary team members were invited to provide feedback via an anonymous online survey. Results A total of 111 ward round entries were reviewed before the proforma was introduced. Ninety-five ward round entries were reviewed following introduction of the proforma, and 84.2% of these used the proforma for documentation. Overall documentation of standardized criteria improved from 48.7% to 62.1% with substantial improvement seen in documentation of neurological examination, presence/absence of mechanical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and blood test results. Multidisciplinary team feedback was positive. Conclusions The stroke-specific ward round proforma improved the quality and consistency of documentation in the unit. An updated proforma was designed using these results and multidisciplinary team feedback.
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.