ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating and Improving the Quality of Clinical Documentation Using the Background, Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (BSOAP) Format: A Clinical Audit at El-Gadarif Teaching Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Article
- Current state of electronic problems lists in primary care: a rapid scoping review.Family practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical documentation is a cornerstone of patient care, ensuring continuity, legal protection, and effective communication among healthcare providers. This study aimed to evaluate and improve the quality of clinical documentation using the Background, Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (BSOAP) format at El-Gadarif Teaching Hospital.
methodsThe clinical audit was carried out in two distinct cycles. The first cycle retrospectively reviewed 25 follow-up notes to establish baseline compliance with documentation standards. Interventions, including staff training and the introduction of a structured BSOAP template, were implemented. The second cycle prospectively assessed another 25 notes to evaluate improvements. Data were analyzed using MS Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, United States), and compliance rates were compared between cycles.
resultsSignificant improvements were observed across multiple documentation domains. Compliance with background information increased from 88% to 92%, while objective data documentation, such as vital signs, improved from 68% to 84%. The most notable improvement was in the assessment section, where problem list documentation rose from 0% to 64%. Adherence to BSOAP documentation guidelines demonstrated a significant enhancement, rising from an initial compliance rate of 31.1% during the first phase of the audit to an impressive 84.9% in the subsequent phase.
conclusionThe introduction of a well-organized BSOAP template, coupled with comprehensive staff training, led to a marked improvement in the accuracy and completeness of clinical documentation. These results highlight the critical role of standardized documentation frameworks in optimizing patient care and promoting adherence to established clinical protocols.
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.