ArticleCureus2025
Improving the Quality of Follow-Up Documentation Using a Structured Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (SOAP)-Based Template: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit at Hasahesa Teaching Hospital, Sudan.
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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Accurate and well-structured follow-up documentation is essential for effective clinical decision-making, continuity of care, and patient safety. In many resource-limited, paper-based hospital settings, follow-up notes are often incomplete or inconsistently structured, resulting in communication gaps and suboptimal care. This audit evaluated whether introducing a standardized Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (SOAP)-based template, supported by targeted staff training, could improve the completeness and organization of follow-up notes in the Internal Medicine Department at Hasahesa Teaching Hospital in Khartoum, Sudan. Methods A prospective two-cycle clinical audit was conducted over six months. Follow-up notes were assessed using a structured proforma based on the SOAP format. In the first cycle, 53 notes were reviewed, and 50 in the second. Between cycles, a multifaceted intervention was implemented, consisting of a standardized SOAP documentation template, staff education sessions, and routine reinforcement. Data were analyzed descriptively, and pre- and post-intervention differences were evaluated using chi-square testing. Results Marked improvements were observed across all SOAP domains following the intervention. Documentation of key subjective elements - including presenting complaint, past medical history, and review of systems - showed substantial gains. Objective documentation improved through more consistent recording of physical examinations and diagnostic results. Clinical reasoning was more clearly articulated through improved recording of primary and differential diagnoses, while planning elements, such as investigations, treatment updates, referrals, and patient education, also demonstrated strong improvement. Overall, adherence to the SOAP structure rose considerably after the intervention. Conclusion Introducing a structured SOAP-based template, reinforced by targeted training, significantly enhanced the completeness and organization of follow-up documentation in a paper-based, resource-constrained setting. The intervention proved simple, practical, and highly effective for improving documentation quality. Sustaining these gains will require ongoing education, periodic re-audits, and the integration of structured documentation expectations into departmental practice. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of improved documentation on clinical outcomes and 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.