Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41918671›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Optimizing Large-Volume Paracentesis in a Gastroenterology Ward: A Two-Cycle Quality Improvement Project.

Lok Man Chuen, Aditi Sinha, Salonee Dhungana, Inez McCurley, Rehan Khan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lok Man ChuenGastroenterology, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Aditi SinhaGastroenterology, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Salonee DhunganaGastroenterology, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Inez McCurleyGastroenterology, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.
Rehan KhanGastroenterology, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background In a busy gastroenterology ward in a London district general hospital, delays were frequently encountered when preparing large-volume paracentesis, mainly due to difficulties in locating and gathering equipment. This Quality Improvement Project (QIP) aimed to standardize equipment preparation, improve perceived efficiency, and enhance post-procedure documentation. Methodology A resident doctor-led, two-cycle QIP was conducted using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology. Cycle one focused on equipment preparation. Baseline data were collected via surveys, followed by the introduction of a standardized equipment checklist poster displayed at the doctors' office. Self-reported time taken to locate and gather equipment was collected pre- and post-intervention. Cycle two focused on post-procedure documentation through the development of a smart text proforma within the electronic patient record to promote safe and consistent documentation. Self-reported time taken for documentation and user feedback was collected. Results There were nine respondents before and six after the poster intervention in cycle one, while in cycle two, there were eight respondents before and six after the introduction of the smart text proforma. At baseline, over half of the resident doctors (five out of nine) required 6-10 minutes to prepare equipment, and 78% (seven out of nine) reported incomplete knowledge of required items. Following the poster intervention, all six respondents had seen the poster, and 83% (five out of six) felt it reduced preparation time. In cycle two, baseline data showed that 50% (four out of eight) required guidance for documentation, with 38% (three out of eight) spending four to six minutes and 25% (two out of eight) spending over 10 minutes per note. After introducing the proforma, all six respondents found it helpful and anticipated being able to complete documentation independently. Overall, 50% (three out of six) and 33% (two out of six) anticipated spending one to three minutes and four to six minutes per note, respectively. Qualitative feedback highlighted clearer and faster documentation. Conclusions Overall, the standardized equipment checklist and smart text proforma were perceived to reduce procedural delays and were reported to improve documentation consistency. They also improved trainee confidence and reduced uncertainty. Similar approaches could be applied to other departments and procedures, with local refinement to ensure ongoing accuracy and relevance.

Indexed as

ascitic draindocumentation improvementgastroenterologylarge-volume paracentesisprocedural efficiencyquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID41918671
PMCPMC13035427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.