ArticleCureus2026
Assessment and Standardization of Follow-Up Notes Among Healthcare Providers in the Internal Medicine Unit at Mek Nimir Hospital: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit From February to December 2025.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complete follow-up notes support continuity of care by communicating the patient's current symptoms, objective findings, clinical assessment, and management plan. This clinical audit evaluated whether a standardized Background, Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan (BSOAP) format could improve the completeness of inpatient follow-up documentation in the Internal Medicine Unit at Mek Nimir Hospital. A prospective before-and-after, two-cycle clinical audit was conducted using unpaired groups of inpatient follow-up notes. The baseline cycle reviewed 42 notes from February 10 to October 1, 2025. After introduction of a standardized BSOAP format, focused staff teaching, and feedback on documentation gaps, the re-audit reviewed 14 notes from December 1 to December 25, 2025. Each note was assessed for the five BSOAP domains and for complete documentation of all five domains. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used to compare proportions because the cycle samples were unpaired, unequal in size, and included small or zero cell counts. Subjective documentation increased from 0/42 (0.0%) at baseline to 14/14 (100.0%) at re-audit, Assessment documentation increased from 7/42 (16.7%) to 13/14 (92.9%), and complete BSOAP documentation increased from 0/42 (0.0%) to 11/14 (78.6%); all three changes were statistically significant (p<0.001). Objective and Plan documentation remained at 100.0% in both cycles. Background documentation decreased from 42/42 (100.0%) to 12/14 (85.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.059). A structured BSOAP follow-up format supported by focused teaching and audit feedback was associated with substantial improvement in documentation completeness. Continued use of the format and repeated audit cycles are needed to sustain the improvement and address the remaining gaps in Background and Assessment documentation.
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.