ArticleCureus2026
Improving the Completeness of Surgical Consent Documentation Through a Closed-Loop Quality Improvement Audit at a Secondary Care Teaching Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Incomplete surgical consent documentation undermines informed decision-making, patient safety, and medico-legal protection. Despite clear ethical and professional standards, deficiencies in consent documentation remain common, particularly in resource-limited settings. Objective To assess the completeness of surgical consent documentation, implement targeted quality improvement interventions, and evaluate their impact through a closed-loop clinical audit. Methods A closed-loop quality improvement audit was conducted at Almanagil Teaching Hospital, Sudan. Two audit cycles were performed, each reviewing 44 consecutive surgical consent forms. The first cycle (July-August 2025) established baseline compliance with predefined consent documentation standards. A structured intervention, including staff education, feedback, and introduction of a revised consent form, was implemented over two months. The second cycle (October-December 2025) reassessed documentation completeness using the same criteria. Data were analysed descriptively and reported as frequencies and percentages. Results At baseline, documentation completeness was low in several key domains, including hospital/file number (1.8%), surgical indication (5.4%), explanation of procedure (16.1%), and anaesthetic and surgical risk explanation (1.8% each). Following the intervention, substantial improvements were observed across nearly all components. Documentation of consent, anaesthesia type, physician and witness details, and patient satisfaction confirmation reached 100% compliance. Explanation of anaesthetic and surgical risks increased to 97.7% and 93.2%, respectively. Documentation of possible additional procedures and patient incapacity details improved to 47.7% and 50.0%, although these remained below full compliance. Conclusion This audit demonstrates that structured, audit-driven quality improvement interventions can markedly enhance the completeness of surgical consent documentation. Regular auditing and sustained reinforcement are recommended to maintain improvements and address remaining gaps.
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.