Admissions records are essential in communicating key information regarding unwell patients and at handover of care. We designed, implemented and evaluated the impact of a standardised surgical clerking proforma on documentation and clinician acceptability in comparison to freehand clerking. A clerking proforma was implemented for all acute general surgical admissions. Documentation was assessed according to 32 criteria based on the Royal College of Surgeons of England guidelines, for admissions before (n = 72) and after (n = 96) implementation. Fisher's exact test and regression analysis were used to compare groups. Surgical team members were surveyed regarding attitudes towards the new proforma. Proforma uptake was 73%. After implementation, documentation increased in 28/32 criteria. This was statistically significant in 17 criteria, including past surgical history (p < 0.01), medication history (p = 0.03), ADLs (p = 0.02), systems review (p < 0.01), blood pressure (p < 0.01), blood results (p = 0.02) and advice given to the patient (p = 0.02). The proforma remained beneficial after regression analysis accounted for differences in time of day, seniority of the doctor and nights or weekends (coefficient = 0.12 [p < 0.01]). 89% of the surgical team felt the form improved quality of documentation and preferred its use to freehand clerking. 94% felt it was beneficial on the post-take ward-round. Audit quality control was also more reliable with the proforma (inter-observer agreement = 99.3% [κ = 0.997]) versus freehand clerking (97.1% [κ = 0.941]). Our study demonstrates that a standardised surgical clerking proformas improves the quantity and quality of documentation in comparison to freehand clerking, is preferred by health professionals and improves reliability of the audit quality control process.
Background This project was based within acute medical unit within a tertiary hospital in London and was conducted by junior doctors working both in geriatrics and in acute medicine. The patient group this project was aimed at was adults aged 65 and over who were admitted under acute medicine. Introduction Anaemia is common in older adults and associated with poor outcomes. This project aimed to explore attitudes and improve recognition, investigation and management of anaemic older adults in acute medicine through a multi-pronged approach. Methods Serial PDSA cycles were conducted over 3 months. Retrospective audit was performed, reviewing electronic records to compare a 2-week period before and after the interventions, identifying which patients admitted under acute medicine and aged over 65 years were anaemic, underwent haematinics and treatment. Interventions Firstly, a survey explored doctors’ attitudes and knowledge of anaemia in older adults as well as identifiable barriers to investigating anaemia when working in acute medicine. The data from this was used to design interventions to address the gaps which emerged. Interventions included an algorithm regarding haematinic interpretation disseminated amongst junior doctors, multiple teaching sessions conducted and posters distributed which highlighted the importance of investigating and treating anaemia. Results The initial audit included 144 patients, of which 50 were anaemic, and the re-audit included 148 patients of which 56 were anaemic. Following the interventions, more patients had haematinics requested, from 60% to 70%, and more were treated, from 30 to 55% (p<0.05). Doctors were surveyed before and after the intervention. The repeat survey demonstrated that more doctors felt addressing anaemia was important, 83% from 55% (p<0.05). More doctors were also confident in the interpretation of haematinics, 61% from 28% (p<0.05) and in prescribing iron, 66% from 27% (p<0.05). Conclusions Anaemia amongst elderly patients in the acute setting is under-estimated, investigated and treated. Targeted educational interventions can improve doctors’ attitudes and knowledge, helping to facilitate the investigation of older adults and enable treatment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.