ArticleCureus2025
Unidentified but Not Unknown: Evaluating the Phonetic Naming System in a UK 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Unidentified or "unknown" patients present significant safety challenges in emergency and trauma care. Structured alias systems aim to reduce misidentification, but practical issues in their use are not well understood. This review evaluated local naming practices for unidentified patients and explored staff experiences with the phonetic alias system at a UK tertiary trauma centre. Methods A mixed-methods review combined policy analysis, a three-month audit of trauma admissions, and an anonymous staff survey (n = 25). The survey captured professional role, experience, perceived safety, training adequacy, and operational challenges. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and free-text comments underwent thematic analysis. Results Most unidentified patients were young male trauma cases requiring airway support. The NATO phonetic naming system was consistently applied and reduced duplication, but documentation of alias assignment and record merging was inconsistent. Staff generally perceived the system as safe (72% rated "good/excellent"), though only 40% felt adequately trained. Free-text responses highlighted confusion between similar-sounding aliases, insufficient training, record-merging errors, and the need for clearer protocols and improved electronic integration. Conclusion Structured phonetic naming supports patient safety, but remains vulnerable to human and process variability. Standardised guidance, embedded training, and better digital integration could strengthen reliability, and ensure unidentified-patient management remains safe, efficient, and respectful.
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.