ArticleCureus2025
Improving Braden Scale Risk Assessment Documentation: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit at Al-Managil 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate Braden Scale documentation is essential for early identification of patients at risk for pressure injuries. Initial observations at Al-Managil Teaching Hospital in Al Managil, Sudan, indicated poor compliance with the Braden Scale assessment and documentation.
objectivesTo evaluate the completeness of Braden Scale documentation before and after a targeted educational and documentation-standardization intervention.
methodsA closed-loop clinical audit was conducted in two cycles, each reviewing 51 patient records. Cycle 1 (retrospective) was performed on 16 May 2025. A two-month intervention consisting of staff education and implementation of a standardized Braden documentation form was introduced, followed by a prospective three-month Cycle 2. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square testing for documentation improvement.
resultsBaseline documentation was markedly incomplete, with 0% recording of all Braden subscales, total score, and risk level. After the intervention, Cycle 2 achieved 100% completion across all Braden components and significant improvements in patient identifiers and administrative fields (p < 0.001 for most parameters). The largest improvements were observed in subscale documentation, risk scoring, and action notes.
conclusionTargeted education combined with a standardized Braden Scale tool resulted in substantial and statistically significant improvements in documentation quality. These low-cost interventions can strengthen pressure-injury prevention practices in resource-limited settings. Continued monitoring and re-auditing are recommended to sustain compliance and assess clinical impact.
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.