ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Audit of Postoperative Documentation in the Kassala Teaching Hospital, Sudan: Compliance With Royal College of Surgeons of England Guidelines.
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.
- Beyond the Scalpel: Improving Operative Note Quality in Gabeet Specialized Hospital, Sudan.Cureus · 2025Article
- 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Accurate postoperative documentation is critical for patient safety, continuity of care, and medico-legal protection. This audit assessed postoperative documentation at the Kassala Teaching Hospital, Sudan and its compliance with the Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) guidelines, and evaluated the impact of targeted interventions. Methods A retrospective pre-intervention audit reviewed 44 postoperative notes from April to May 2025. A root cause analysis identified deficiencies (e.g., lack of awareness, no standardized templates, time constraints). Interventions included staff education, standardized templates, visual reminders, and enhanced supervision. A post-intervention audit of 51 notes evaluated improvements. Results Pre-intervention compliance was high for operative procedure (88.6%), findings (88.6%), and postoperative instructions (93.2%), but critically low for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis (25.0%), prosthesis identification (40.9%), and surgeon's signature (45.5%). Post-intervention, significant improvements occurred in operative diagnosis (from 45.5% to 86.4%; +89.8%) and date/time documentation (from 65.9% to 88.6%; +34.5%). However, DVT prophylaxis (27.3%), prosthesis identification (43.2%), and surgeon's signature (47.7%) remained suboptimal. Conclusion Targeted interventions significantly improved overall compliance with RCS documentation standards. Persistent gaps in documenting DVT prophylaxis, prostheses, and signatures highlight systemic challenges. Sustained improvement requires institutional changes (e.g., electronic templates, mandatory tracking systems, regular audits) and ongoing staff training. Re-auditing is recommended to ensure long-term adherence.
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.