Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:24:02.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inpatient Ward Review Documentation Audit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Derya Nurlu*
Affiliation:
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Chelmsford, United Kingdom
Abdul Raoof
Affiliation:
Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Chelmsford, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Good medical records are essential to the continuity of patient care. The aims of this audit were to evaluate the quality of ward review documentation in 7 Psychiatry wards in Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, to identify areas of improvement, to recommend strategies to improve record keeping, and to measure their effectiveness by comparing records in the 1st and 2nd cycles of audit.

Methods

A sample of 10 patients from each of the 7 wards was selected, for a total of 70 patients, in each of the 1st and 2nd cycles of the audit (Data were collected in the 1st cycle between 06-07-2021 and 22-07-2021, and 2nd cycle between 16-10-2022 and 07-11-2022). Samples were selected randomly among patients who were inpatient or discharged recently. The data were collected from the first, middle, and last ward reviews. If the patient was inpatient at the time of the data collection, data were collected from their first review, the last/most recent ward review, and one of the reviews in between. Patients who did not meet this criterion were excluded. Based on 1st cycle results, strategies were recommended to improve record keeping. After 15 months, 2nd cycle results were used to evaluate their effectiveness.

Results

The results demonstrate significant areas of improvements in record keeping: a majority of questions did not meet the standard of 80% completion considered “satisfactory” in previous audits. In the 2nd cycle, 9 questions had a “satisfactory” completion rates. These were mandatory or automated questions and ones essential to immediate patient care. 7 questions had “average” completion rates above 45%. All (17) other questions and subquestions had “low” completion rates. Analysis of variations between cycles shows that question on “Responsible clinician” increased from 23.3% to 99.5% because it was automated. 4 other questions or sub-questions have seen a substantial increase in completion rate between the 1st and 2nd cycle. But our strategies’ effectiveness during the period of the audit has proven limited and difficult to trace.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that more efforts should be dedicated to improving medical record in the psychiatry wards of Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. The most effective strategy to secure high ward review docummentation rates remains to make questions mandatory or auto-complete when possible. More research is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of other strategies such as the education of junior doctors in induction and awareness posters in wards.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.