ArticleCureus2023
Improving Thoracic Surgery Ward Round Quality and Enhancing Patient Safety in a Referral Centre.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Ward rounds are vital clinical processes that facilitate an opportunity for daily review and management of thoracic surgery inpatients. The aim of this study was to compare thoracic surgery ward round documentation against locally agreed standards and design a template to improve the detail and uniformity of this process to enhance patient care. Materials and methods Data for this audit was collected retrospectively and prospectively. Data was collected during three auditing periods and managed on Microsoft Excel. Descriptive statistics were used for its analysis. Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests were used to test for differences in reporting rates. Results and discussion Initially, a total of 199 ward round notes were reviewed. Imaging results (19%) and discharge planning (23%) were not reported. eCARE (electronic Clinical Assessment for Round Evaluation) was developed to ensure that all aspects of patient evaluation recommended by the guidelines were included. Reporting rates significantly improved after such changes. We analysed the effect of the new ward round note on discharge planning (23.3 vs 41%, p<0.001), complication rates (32.6 vs 21.9%, p=0.03), post-surgical length of stay (LOS) (7.0 vs 5.0, p<0.001). Conclusion Over a year, we audited the Thoracic Surgery Department's ward round documentation against locally agreed standards in line with national recommendations. Several important items were not regularly reported. Using closed-ended questions improved reporting rates, and patient care was optimised. Further research should explore the impact of this new documentation method on patient care and postoperative outcomes in our Trust as well as other cardiothoracic centres.
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.