Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28579872›Full record

ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2017

Medicons: toward clinical examination diagrams standardization in medical documentation.

Georgios Pafitanis, Michalis Hadjiandreou, Leo Withers, Helen Dent

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Georgios PafitanisThe Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Michalis HadjiandreouBarts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK.
Leo WithersThe Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Helen DentSt Richard's Hospital, Chichester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic patient records (EPRs) allow efficient and accurate medical documentation. Diagrams have traditionally been used to document clinical signs in patient notes. The interpretation of these diagrams may vary among doctors across a range of specialties, but this has never been tested previously. This study investigated how common diagrams were interpreted and explored the use of digitalized diagrams - Medicons in creating a common language to be used in digital clinical examination proformas. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional survey utilizing a multiple-choice questionnaire was carried out across London hospitals. Seventeen digitalized examination diagrams were included in a multiple-choice questionnaire to test doctors' perception and explore their opinions of diagram usage. The questionnaire was sent to junior doctors in training.

resultsA total of 206 responses were received from 31 foundation year 1 trainees, 45 foundation year 2 trainees, 94 core surgical trainees and 36 core medical trainees. Diagrams were interpreted correctly, on average, 75% of the time. The majority of doctors (94%) felt that diagrams facilitated the understanding of clinical examination, documentation of pathologic site (98%) and improved the efficiency of documentation (89.8%). All doctors felt that diagrams may benefit overall medical care provision.

conclusionDigitalizing signs and symptoms in EPR will enhance clinical documentation and may contribute to better patient care. New initiatives need to be employed to increase the use of diagrams - Medicons, as young doctors perceived these to improve clinical documentation. Standardized electronic proformas should be included into EPR to improve the efficiency and accuracy of clinical examination documentation.

Indexed as

clinical diagramselectronic patient recordmedical documentation

Identifiers

PMID28579872
PMCPMC5446968

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.