ArticleCureus2026
Improving Wound Assessment Documentation Using a Structured Scoring Tool: A Closed-Loop Quality Improvement Project at Al Managil Teaching Hospital, Sudan.
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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Incomplete wound assessment documentation can compromise clinical decision-making, continuity of care, and patient safety. Structured documentation tools have been proposed to standardize wound assessment practices and reduce variability. This quality improvement project evaluated the impact of implementing a structured wound assessment scoring tool on documentation completeness at Al Managil Teaching Hospital. Methods A closed-loop quality improvement project was conducted using two audit cycles. Fifty wound dressing records were reviewed during a two-week baseline assessment (Cycle 1). Following analysis of deficiencies, a structured wound assessment scoring tool (WOUND-DRESS) was introduced alongside focused staff education and reinforcement over a two-month implementation period. A second audit cycle was conducted over three months, reviewing 50 additional records. Compliance with predefined documentation standards was compared between cycles using chi-square testing. Results Significant improvements were observed across most documentation domains. Recording of wound exudate increased from 25/50 (50%) to 50/50 (100%) (p < 0.001), depth and tissue exposure from 14/50 (28%) to 50/50 (100%) (p < 0.001), and infection risk from 8/50 (16%) to 50/50 (100%) (p < 0.001). Calculation of total wound score improved from 3/50 (6%) to 50/50 (100%) (p < 0.001), and documentation of action taken increased from 21/50 (42%) to 50/50 (100%) (p < 0.001). Administrative variables also improved, although documentation of dressing type did not demonstrate significant improvement. Conclusion Implementation of a structured wound assessment scoring tool was associated with substantial improvements in documentation completeness, particularly in safety-critical assessment domains. Structured tools combined with targeted education and audit feedback can enhance standardization of wound documentation and support patient safety. Ongoing monitoring is required to sustain these improvements.
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.