ArticleCureus2025
Enhancing Documentation of Upper Limb Specialist Team Meetings at a Tertiary Trauma Centre.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpecialist team meetings play a key role in the management of complex trauma and reconstructive cases, but their impact depends on accurate documentation. Inconsistent or informal record-keeping risks duplication, transcription errors, and loss of critical information, with implications for governance and patient safety.
methodsA quality improvement project was undertaken in the upper limb specialist team meeting at a tertiary trauma centre. At baseline, outcomes were recorded as PowerPoint slides stored in a shared folder without systematic entry into the electronic patient record (EPR). Interventions included the introduction of a structured documentation template, centralised storage, and a shared worklist integrated into the clinical portal. A re-audit of all meetings between 16 May and 22 November 2024 assessed completeness of documentation, reasons for omissions, and qualitative benefits for patient care.
resultsAt baseline, no complex patient outcomes were documented in the EPR. Following the intervention, 44 complex cases were reviewed, of which 39 (89%) had outcomes recorded directly in the EPR through the shared worklist. The five undocumented cases occurred during the junior doctor changeover period, highlighting the importance of robust handover processes. The new system also improved accessibility, facilitated follow-up, and strengthened clinical governance by creating a permanent, retrievable record of decisions.
conclusionStructured, EPR-integrated documentation substantially improved the completeness and accessibility of specialist team meeting records, supporting safer patient handover and stronger governance. These findings align with international evidence that high-quality electronic records improve care quality and suggest that similar frameworks could be applied across subspecialty services to standardise documentation and enhance patient safety.
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.