Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Future Healthcare Journal

  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Future Healthcare Journal

futurehosp Logo
  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

A closed loop audit to analyse the documentation by medical and healthcare staff in clinical oncology patients to assess quality of inpatient documentation against a standard set by the GMC and the RCP

Ghania Ilyas and Andrea D'souza
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.7.1.s26
Future Healthc J February 2020
Ghania Ilyas
AGuy's and St Thomas Trust, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrea D'souza
AGuy's and St Thomas Trust, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Background

The main focus of healthcare delivery is to ensure patient safety while practising evidence-based medicine. While doing so the medicolegal safety of the healthcare professional is also of utmost importance. We noticed that a large number of E-noting entries made for inpatients did not have enough information to ascertain accountability for that entry. This intrigued us to look into set standards for documentation and then compare them to practice generally adopted on the ward to assess if these standards were being met.1,2

Aims and objective

The purpose of this audit was to assess the documented entries on inpatient notes, with the aim of improving efficiency, ensuring patient safety and supporting medical professionals in having medicolegally binding documentation.

Method

We conducted a closed loop audit to analyse inpatient e-noting documentation entries, using three main parameters:

  • Name of the individual/team making the entry.

  • Bleep or contact details of the person/team making the entry.

  • Whether or not the entry was saved.

We collected quantitative data on a selected group of individuals (clinical oncology inpatients). The first set of data was collected in May 2019 and presented in an audit meeting in June 2019. We consulted oncology and outlier wards and spoke to healthcare professionals within multidisciplinary teams regarding the importance of accountability and accurate documentation. We have individually emailed allied healthcare professionals to alert them on the importance of being contactable when documenting on clinical records. We waited for 2 weeks after the action and then did a prospective analysis of the documented entries in first 2 weeks of October for clinical oncology inpatients to complete the audit cycle.

Results

The numbers and percentages of entries meeting each of the three parameters are given in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Number and percentage of entries meeting the parameters

Conclusion

Based on the initial audit results, the set standard of 100% documented entries having all three parameters was not met. The re-audit results showed that overall there was a general improvement in terms of names and saved entries. This improved the accountability and safety of both patients and healthcare professionals. However, the ideal of 100% was still not achieved. There is a slight decline in number of entries including bleep numbers, suggesting that more education and training is needed within the oncology department to highlight the importance of medicolegally binding documentation for safe practice.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2020. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. General Medical Council
    . Ethical guidance for doctors, good medical practice. GMC, 2013. www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/good-medical-practice/domain-1—knowledge-skills-and-performance#paragraph-19 [Accessed 25 March 2019].
  2. ↵
    1. Royal College of Physicians
    . Generic medical record keeping standards. RCP, 2015. www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/generic-medical-record-keeping-standards [Accessed 25 March 2019].
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
A closed loop audit to analyse the documentation by medical and healthcare staff in clinical oncology patients to assess quality of inpatient documentation against a standard set by the GMC and the RCP
Ghania Ilyas, Andrea D'souza
Future Healthc J Feb 2020, 7 (Suppl 1) s26-s27; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.7.1.s26

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A closed loop audit to analyse the documentation by medical and healthcare staff in clinical oncology patients to assess quality of inpatient documentation against a standard set by the GMC and the RCP
Ghania Ilyas, Andrea D'souza
Future Healthc J Feb 2020, 7 (Suppl 1) s26-s27; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.7.1.s26
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Background
    • Aims and objective
    • Method
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • Conflicts of interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Educating junior doctors on DNACPR and ceiling of treatment policy improves compliance with form completion and documentation of resuscitation decisions
  • Effective strategies in recruitment and clinical orientation programme to manage NHS junior doctor workforce shortfall: a district general hospital experience
  • Non-invasive ventilation in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Results from an anonymous survey of physicians
Show more Quality improvement and patient safety

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home

Other Services

  • Advertising
futurehosp Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians