ArticleBioinformation2024
Current trends on clinical audit on surgical record keeping.
Article in Bioinformation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this audit was to evaluate compliance with the local surgical record-keeping policy, identify areas of non-compliance and recommend improvements. A retrospective review was conducted using 30 randomly selected inpatient records from the surgical department, audited over two quarters (Q1 and Q2 of 2023). Data were extracted via the Electronic Data Management System (EDMS) and analyzed using the trust's record-keeping audit tool. The audit assessed compliance with 30 standards, with 10 standards targeting 100% compliance and 20 standards targeting 75% compliance. The audit highlighted significant deficits in surgical record keeping, with major issues being illegible entries, missing clinician designations and inconsistent use of approved abbreviations. Although improvements were observed in certain areas, such as proper documentation of date and time, further efforts are needed to enhance compliance across all standards. Recommendations include improved induction training, standardized documentation layouts and prompt recording of clinical events.
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.