ArticleCureus2025
Introducing a Standardized Clinical Investigation Sheet for Medical Documentation at Dongola Specialized Hospital, 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 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inconsistent and incomplete documentation of investigation results at Dongola Specialized Hospital in Sudan has compromised patient safety and clinical efficiency. To address this, a two-cycle quality improvement project was conducted between April and May 2025, with targeted interventions implemented between the cycles to enhance compliance and address identified gaps. In the first cycle, root causes such as the absence of standardized forms, inadequate staff training, and a lack of accountability mechanisms were identified. Interventions included the introduction of a standardized investigation sheet, targeted staff education, and reinforcement strategies such as instructional posters and laminated samples. In the second cycle, redesigned forms with mandatory fields and visual cues were implemented, resulting in substantial improvements in documentation. Patient identification improved from 1.9% to 76.9%, critical markers such as blood group, hepatitis, and HIV status were consistently recorded (100%), and overall documentation completeness rose from 18.2% to 74.0%. However, persistent gaps remained in time-sensitive investigations such as arterial blood gases and glucose levels. These findings demonstrate that standardized documentation tools, supported by training and accountability, can significantly strengthen medical record quality and, by extension, enhance patient safety and clinical decision-making in resource-limited settings. Sustained monitoring, targeted refinements, and potential integration with electronic health records are recommended to maintain progress and scale improvements across similar contexts.
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.