ArticleCureus2022
Improving Acute Orthopaedic Admission Note Documentation Standards at a Tertiary Centre Through Proforma Introduction: A Quality Improvement Initiative.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Clear, accurate written documentation plays an important role in the handover of medical information, helping to improve care efficiency and avoid medical errors. Both HSE and the Irish National Orthopaedic Models of Care guidelines include key documentation standards for admission notes. Standardised medical admission proforma can help improve documentation standards, but their usage across Irish orthopaedic units is limited to three centres. We evaluated whether an admission proforma improved the documentation standards of acute orthopaedic trauma admission notes within our regional trauma unit. Methods Cycle 1 consisted of a retrospective review of 50 consecutive acute orthopaedic trauma admissions. Exclusion criteria included planned admissions, age <16 years, spinal or pelvic trauma, and 'hip' fractures for whom an existing proforma was in use. Cycle 2 consisted of a prospective review of 50 consecutive acute trauma admissions using the new proforma. Each cycle was scored against a pre-determined checklist incorporating Irish Health Service Executive and Orthopaedic Models of Care documentation standards, with results collated and statistical analysis then performed using Fisher's exact test. Findings Significant improvements in admission note compliance with national documentation were observed. This encompassed multiple domains including clinical identification, e.g., consultant identification (78% to 100% p=0.0005), clinical history, time of injury (72% to 100% p=0.0001), medical history, smoking status (86% to 100% p=0.0001), and patient assessment, vital signs (28% to 70% p=0.0001). Conclusion Improvements in admission note compliance with national documentation standards followed the introduction of a standardised proforma. These findings may encourage the introduction of similar proforma in other units, with potential benefits in 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.