Why the study?
Does adding a prompt to the medical clerk-in document improve the documentation of pregnancy status and gynaecological history in female emergency surgical admissions?
Does adding a prompt to the medical clerk-in document improve the documentation of pregnancy status and gynaecological history in female emergency surgical admissions?
A simple prompt in surgical admission documents significantly improves the documentation of pregnancy status and gynaecological history in female patients of reproductive age.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Poor documentation of pregnancy status in emergency surgical admissions of reproductive-age women leaves open the need for mandatory prompts; supports prospective trials before national guideline changes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pregnancy status, gynaecological history, date of last menstrual period and contraceptive use are documented in emergency female admissions of reproductive age admitted to general surgery. DESIGN: This is a retrospective study. SETTING: This study was conducted in the United Kingdom. POPULATION: Females of reproductive age (12-50 years) admitted as an emergency to general surgery with abdominal pain were considered in this study. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of medical notes of emergency female admissions with abdominal pain between January and September 2012. We recorded whether a pregnancy test result was documented (cycle 1). Results were analysed and a prompt added to the medical clerk-in document. We re-audited (cycle 2) between January and June 2013 looking for improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Documented pregnancy status within 24 h of admission and prior to any surgical intervention. RESULTS: 100 case notes were reviewed in stage 1. 30 patients (30 %) had a documented pregnancy status. 32 (32 %), 25 (25 %) and 29 (29 %) had a documented gynaecology history, contraceptive use and date of last menstrual period (LMP), respectively. 24 patients underwent emergency surgery, 6 (25 %) had a documented pregnancy status prior to surgery. Of 50 patients reviewed in stage 2, 37 (75.0 %) had a documented pregnancy status (p < 0.001), with 41 (82 %) having both gynaecological history (p < 0.0001) and contraceptive use (p < 0.0001) documented. 40 patients (80 % had a documented LMP (p < 0.0001). 7 patients required surgery, of whom 6 (85.7 %) had a documented pregnancy test prior to surgery (p = 0.001). All pregnancy tests were negative. CONCLUSIONS: A simple prompt in the surgical admission document has significantly improved the documentation of pregnancy status and gynaecological history in our female patients, particularly in those who require surgical intervention. A number of patient safety concerns were addressed locally, but require a coordinated, interdisciplinary discussion and a national guideline. A minimum standard of care, in females of reproductive age, should include mandatory objective documentation of pregnancy status, whether or not they require surgical intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Powell-Bowns et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: