Clinical audit evaluates improved documentation of vital signs in surgical and orthopedic patients, suggesting enhanced safety.
Background: Accurate documentation of vital signs during triage is essential for early recognition of clinical deterioration in surgical and orthopedic patients. In high-volume rural hospitals, incomplete recording of physiological parameters may compromise patient safety. This clinical audit aimed to assess baseline documentation of vital signs during triage and evaluate the impact of a structured, low-cost intervention. Methods: A prospective clinical audit was conducted in a rural district hospital managing surgical, orthopedic, and trauma patients. Adult patients undergoing routine triage in outpatient and emergency departments were included. Five vital signs were audited: pulse, blood pressure, temperature, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ). Baseline data were collected for 250 consecutive patients. A structured intervention consisting of a triage checklist, reminder posters, and brief staff education was introduced. A reaudit was performed for 250 consecutive patients using identical methodology. Documentation rates were compared using Chi-square testing. Results: Baseline documentation rates were highest for pulse (72%) and blood pressure (75.2%), while respiratory rate was least frequently recorded (40%). Following intervention, documentation improved significantly across all parameters, including pulse (96%), blood pressure (97.2%), temperature (92%), respiratory rate (84.8%), and SpO 2 (90%) ( P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Complete documentation of all five vital signs increased from 32% at baseline to 79.2% following intervention. Conclusion: Implementation of a structured triage documentation checklist significantly improved recording of vital signs in a resource-limited rural hospital. Low-cost workflow interventions may enhance patient safety and support standardized triage practices across primary care and district hospital settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nagpal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: