ArticleCureus2025
Introducing a New Investigation Sheet at Almanagil Teaching Hospital in Sudan: A Quality Improvement Project.
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
- 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
backgroundIncomplete medical documentation threatens patient safety and efficiency. At Almanagil Teaching Hospital (Sudan), baseline audits revealed only 21% completeness of investigation forms.
aimThis study aimed to increase documentation completeness from 21% to ≥90% within six weeks through a standardized investigation sheet and staff training.
methodsA prospective observational quality improvement project (May-June 2025) applied two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Cycle 1 audited 50 forms to assess baseline practice. Interventions included a redesigned standardized sheet, educational workshops, laminated samples, and posters. Cycle 2 audited 51 forms to assess improvement and gather feedback. Completeness was defined as the proportion of eligible fields documented. Two auditors independently reviewed 20% of forms (κ = 0.89). Because samples were independent, Pearson χ² and two-proportion z-tests were used, with Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Effect sizes were reported with 95% confidence intervals. Run charts tracked weekly progress. Balancing measures included form completion time and laboratory turnaround.
resultsMean completeness increased from 21.7% (95% CI: 14.5-28.9) to 94.2% (95% CI: 91.1-97.3) (p < 0.001). Improvements were seen across patient identifiers (0-40% → 100%) and critical labs (12-14% → ≥98%). Median form completion time increased slightly (3.2 → 3.7 minutes; p = 0.12), with no change in laboratory turnaround (2.0 → 2.1 hours; p = 0.64). Staff feedback informed refinements, including urgent flags and color-coded fields.
conclusionsA standardized sheet with training and audit cycles significantly improved documentation completeness. Sustainability measures include weekly audits, documentation champions, rejection of incomplete forms, quarterly refresher training, and electronic medical record integration.
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.