ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
Don't guess the GCS: a systems-based approach to safer neurological assessment in the emergency department.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a fundamental tool in emergency neurological assessment, yet its accuracy is frequently compromised by cognitive load and reliance on recall. This quality improvement project aimed to assess the accuracy, speed, and clinician confidence in GCS scoring and to evaluate the impact of a low-cost visual aid and educational intervention.
methodsA baseline survey assessed GCS use, confidence, and reliance on visual aids among 30 emergency department (ED) staff. A subgroup of 20 staff then completed ten clinical vignettes with and without visual aids, measuring accuracy and time to completion. An educational package and standardised GCS posters were introduced, followed by three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles assessing real-time scoring accuracy during live resuscitation room care.
resultsOf surveyed staff, 80% calculated GCS daily, though 47% did so without aids. Confidence increased from 77% without aids to 93% with aids. In vignette testing, accuracy improved from 24 to 48% (p = 0.18), while mean completion time decreased from 44 to 33 s (p = 0.001). PDSA cycles demonstrated sustained real-time improvement in scoring accuracy (80%, 100%, 86%).
conclusionThis intervention improved the accuracy and efficiency of GCS assessments in a high-acuity ED setting. A simple cognitive aid, embedded within a patient safety culture, can reduce error and support safer neurological assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41692919What 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.