Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37786628›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2023

Omitting repetitive clerking does not disadvantage cardiology patients and reduces duplication.

Ravi Chotalia, Dora Czeke, Alun Harcombe

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ravi ChotaliaNottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Dora CzekeNottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Alun HarcombeNottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Nottingham City Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nottingham University Hospital's cardiology department receives an average of 320 admissions via the emergency department (ED) monthly. The majority are out-of-hours. In ED, admissions are clerked by ED doctors as well as the specialist cardiology advanced nursing team (CATS). Upon transfer to cardiology, they are then re-clerked by an on-call junior doctor (JD). Our aim in this quality improvement project was to investigate the benefit of re-clerking cardiology patients by the JD. The CATS team clerking and plan were directly compared to the JD's plan across 100 patients by two reviewers. Data were also collected on the time spent performing a clerking by nine JDs. An alternative form of reviewing patients, which involved the JD reviewing the CATS clerking, bloods, observations and discussing with nursing staff, was performed in 29 cases. In 5% of cases a JD changed the management plan. Three cases were flagged to doctors by nursing staff, and two cases involved starting oral antibiotics. The average time spent clerking patients previously was 49.5 +/212 minutes (mean+/2SD). In the new method, this was 12.5 +/23 minutes. We conclude that 0mitting repetitive clerking does not disadvantage patients, while saving time for on-call JDs. Patients are also not woken up unnecessarily overnight, which may reduce the risk of delirium. We plan to rationalise our admission system.

Indexed as

admissionsclerkingsjunior doctorsquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID37786628
PMCPMC10540804
OpenAlexW4376277550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.