ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Correct Documentation of Physician Details and Time in General Surgery Ward Round Notes: An Audit and Re-Audit.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background Accurate medical documentation is essential for patient safety, continuity of care, and medico-legal accountability. Incomplete or inconsistent entries can compromise communication within the multidisciplinary team and expose healthcare providers to legal risk. This audit assessed compliance of general surgery ward round documentation with General Medical Council (GMC), Royal College of Surgeons, and local Trust standards, focusing on the inclusion of the date, time, clinician's full name, signature, and GMC number. Methodology The audit was conducted across three general surgery wards at Broomfield Hospital. The initial audit data were collected on March 27-28, 2025, and the re-audit data were collected on June 26-27, 2025, three months later. Ward round notes were reviewed for compliance with the following five key parameters: date, time, full name, signature, and GMC number. Following presentation of the initial findings, targeted interventions were implemented, including educational posters, email reminders, and encouragement for doctors to use personal stamps. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel, and chi-squared testing was used to determine statistical significance at p-values <0.05. Results In total, 83 ward round notes were analysed in the initial audit cycle and 92 in the re-audit. Compliance improved across all parameters, i.e., date (100%), time (27.7%→90.2%), full name (67.5%→87.0%), signature (72.3%→94.6%), and GMC number (12.0%→75.0%), with statistically significant improvements in all except the date parameter (p < 0.05). Conclusions Targeted awareness and educational interventions significantly improved adherence to documentation standards within the general surgery department. These measures enhanced record-keeping accuracy, improved professional accountability, and may help reduce medico-legal risk and associated financial costs to the Trust.
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.