Improving Information Adequacy of Clinical Morning Reports: Development of a Structured Model in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department&nbsp;

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-286323/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Improving Information Adequacy of Clinical Morning Reports: Development of a Structured Model in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-286323/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: This study was aimed to improve the information adequacy of clinical Morning Reports by developing a structured reporting model.

Methods: This study was a qualitative research conducted in three phases at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of three educational hospitals in northeastern Iran. After investigating the current status of MR sessions, the content of 120 reports were included extracted. The items were assigned subject groups for primary structuring while their validation getting confirmation using a two-round Delphi technique involving 10 specialists. Then, the structured model of clinical MRs was developed in two formats: structured paper-based form (SPF) and structured electronic format (SEF). The final evaluation was conducted comparing three practices of SPF, SEF, and conventional formats.

Results: All studied MR samples were found unstructured in content. From 120 collected samples, 58 items were extracted and categorized into four categories. During the first Delphi round, all existing information were preserved with varying weights. but the participating experts also suggested six additional items to be included. In the second round, 11 items with the lowest scores were removed. Results of the comparative evaluation showed that the SPF format scored highest on the preference of use, ease of archiving and retrieval, application in future research, and ease of reporting. The SEF format scored highest on the clear understanding of patient status and readability.

Conclusion: Using a standardized structured morning report based on the preference of local experts improves the quality of morning reports in various matters including efficiency, adequacy, and ease.

Medical Informatics

Morning report

Medical education

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Iran

Clinical education is considered as the heart of medical education with an emphasis on individualized patient-related issues (1). Much of the educational process for medical students is done in real-world settings and through interaction with patients. As such, clinical education is fundamentally different from teaching in other disciplines (2). Matching theoretical knowledge with objective examples helps the learning process and long-term memorization of teaching material. Patient-based learning helps students to correct the misconceptions of their theoretical knowledge and reinforces the right ones (3). Among the different methods of clinical education, morning report (MR) is the most widely used routine in the world (2). A standard morning report is a session attended by clinical professors, their assistants, and the interns and externs focused on presentation of selected clinical cases from the most recent admissions, particularly the ones from last 24 hours (4).

Morning reports are practiced in various ways using different locally to globally known methods. MRs cover a wide range of activities including an overall report of recent clinical events, analysis of various differential diagnosis and the choices of therapeutic, evaluation of residents' performance, assessment of the care provided to patients, identification and discussion of potential adverse events, and managing case-based controversies (5). The main purpose of MR sessions is to discuss clinical cases and, subsequently, to master how to make an informed clinical decision (6).

The MR format may vary from institute to institute, but they all share some common features. For instance, there is often a case-based presentation, during which a case is discussed from various angels and perspectives. Over the years, various learning approaches have attempted to improve the case-based presentation in MR sessions (5). Research has shown that structuring clinical report improves the quality (7), reduces ambiguity, and increases accuracy, clarity, and value of clinical documents (8). Although preparing structured clinical reports is a considerably time demanding process for physicians as compared to the choice of free-text format, evidence has shown that at the end, such reports are the most satisfying forms to medical team (9).

Literature shows little evidence regarding attempts to propose structures for morning report case presentation items, while there seems to be no doubt that a coherent structured report form with expert-agreed information items would make immersive improvements. This study was aimed to research such needs and top propose a model while testing the result for evidential assurance.

This was a qualitative study that included the investigation of information adequacy and also development, validation, and evaluation of a model to produce structured clinical morning reports conducted at the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of three teaching hospitals in north-eastern Iran. This structured report is developed in two separate formats. The study was conducted in three phases, as follow.

Phase I: Studying current status of MR documentations

In the first phase, a survey was conducted to examine the current quality of MR documentations in the participating hospitals. For this purpose, a checklist was developed in two sections with a focus on the structure and documentation of clinical MR sessions, borrowing items from previous studies (5,10,11), followed by an expert-panel check and verification step (Table 1. Shows the characteristics of the participating experts: C01, C02). The initially developed checklist was completed by three gynecologists and obstetricians in charge of MR session management at the time of research conduction in the three mentioned hospitals.

Table 1. The Expert-panel characteristics with identification codes

A total of 120 MR reports were selected based on random sampling among the currently available reports within the report archive. All reports were in “free-text” format. Every report was thoroughly read and analyzed in order to extract informational items.

In the next stage, the list of extracted items was provided to the four members of the panel (Table 1. Involved experts: C01, C02, C03, C04). After reviewing by the panel, all extracted items were approved and subsequently classified into four thematic categories. The pre-approved list of items and categories were then shared for two rounds of enhancement and approval a modified Delphi technique as follow:

A) In the first round, all final items were assessed by ten clinical experts from the participating hospitals, none was part of the expert panel. Table 2 shows general characteristics of the experts who participated in the Delphi study. Each item was allowed to be tagged for removal or to be kept based on the agreement quotient. Accordingly, the items with greater than 75% agreement quotient were kept in the first round and were not passed to the second round. The items with 50% to 75% agreement quotient were reassessed in the second round; and items with an agreement quotient of below 50% were omitted. After the end of the first round, all extracted items obtained more than 75% agreement quotient. However, new items were also suggested by experts.

B) In the second round, clinical experts were requested to score the value of each item. Accordingly, the Likert Scale was used in a discrete and typical format of an interval scale, ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Then, the mean and standard deviation (SD) of scores for each item were calculated, and then a cut-off point was selected. The mean scores below this point were those items that were to be removed from the list.

Table 2. General information about the experts who participated in the items validation stage

Phase II: Developing a Structured Model for Clinical Morning Reports

In this phase, a structured model of clinical MR was developed based on the previously validated items. This model was created in two formats: structured paper-based form (SPF) and structured electronic format (SEF).

The SPF format was developed in two parts: general and specific. In the first part, based on the opinions of the two expert panel members (Table 1. Involved experts: C01, C02), the general information items for report forms were added. The specific part included all confirmed items from the Delphi technique, like general patient information, pregnancy details information, disease background, surgical history, midwifery history, drug use history, previous hospitalization, signs and symptoms, lab information, ultrasound data, as well as an attachment option for clinical images (shown in Table 3).

In order to create the SEF format, an electronic version of the SPF was produced using a Windows-based software built using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010. Additionally, we built an MR SEF archive using Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Database and Stimulsoft Reports 2010 software.

Table 3. The obtained items from the validation stage for using in the structured clinical morning report

General Report’s Information

General Patient Information

Previous Obstetric History

Disease Background

Surgical History

On-call physician name

Number of clinic visits

First name and last name

Admission date

Admission time

Gestational age

Diabetes

Uterus

Number of hospitalized patients

Number of NVD

Age

Prenatal care

LMP

Root of delivery

Ovarian

Number of CS

Curettage number

EDC

Marriage family relation

Unwanted pregnancy

Pregnancy type

CVD

Others

Vacuum number

Laparotomy number

Pregnancy by medicine

Date

Renal disease

VBAC number

Residents name

Comments

Drug addiction

Estimation of gestational age by LMP

Estimation of gestational age by ultrasound

Smoking

Current situation

Others

Midwifery History

Drug Use History

Previous Hospitalization

Signs and Symptoms

Lab Information

Ultrasound Data

Others

Infertility

Drug name (Generic)

Date

Disease progress

Curettage

Duration of use

Cause

Time

Actual gestational age

Final diagnosis

Stillbirth

Drug dosage

Therapeutic care

FHR

Test name

The present of gestational age

Diagnostic measures

Repeated abortion

Discontinuation date

Amniotic fluid index

Therapeutic measures

Others

Reason for Discontinuation

Placenta position

Comments

NVD: Normal Vaginal Delivery, CS: Cesarean Section, LMP: Last Menstrual Period, EDC: Estimated Date Of Confinement, MG: Multigravida, PG: Prim gravida, Ab: Abortion, LC: Living Children, DC: Dead Children, EP: Ectopic Pregnancy, CC: Chief Complaint, BP: Blood Pressure, CVD: Cardiovascular Disease, AF: Amniotic Fluid, FHR: Fetal Heart Rate, FH: Fundal Height, VB: Vaginal Bleeding, T: Temperature, RR: Respiratory Rate, PR: Pulse Rate, TV: Test of Vagina

The face and content validity of the developed structured forms were checked by three members of the expert panel (Table 1. Involved experts: C01, C02, C03). As a result, some item classes were revised and some items of the initial form were merged, splitted or replaced.

Phase III: Evaluation of the proposed model

In order to evaluate the quality of proposed structure model, a questionnaire was designed consisted of two sections. Section 1 was aimed at measuring the adequacy of the finally selected items, and Section 2 was focused on the comparisonal assessment between the three clinical MR formats (conventional, SPF, and SEF), in terms of readability, clarity of patient status, ease of reporting, future research application, ease of archiving and retrieval, and preference for use. Both sections were using independent questions. The questionnaire was initially provided to the expert-panel members (Table 1. Involved experts: C03, C04, C05) for review and approval.

A total of 16 MR documents were selected based on the opinions of the consulting experts containing different scenarios. Afterward, the reports older than three months were taken into consideration.

To prepare the three formats, the same residents in charge of the original report were asked to produce the SPF format for the same patients. Later, the SEF format of each report was produced by the research team using the completed SPF content.

For final evaluation, all three formats, including the SPF, SEF, and the conventional formats were shared with the selected experts for comparison and evaluation. Overall, sixteen MR documents in three formats (n=48) were provided to 20 residents of Obstetrics and Gynecology (excluding those who participated in previous tasks) along with the questionnaire. Excel 2010 was used for the analysis of the results.

Survey of Current Status

The results of the survey of the current status showed that the current MR documentation in all three hospitals was based on non-structured case-based reports reflecting on the patients’ logbooks. Table 4 shows the results of the current status of clinical MR sessions and documentation at hospitals A, B, and C.

Table 4. The current status survey in hospitals A, B, and C

No.	Class	Item	Hospital
Survey on the documentation of the sessions
1.	Log reporting	No logging	-	-	-
		Manual	A	B	C
		Electronic	-	-	-
2.	Report analysis	Structured	-	-	-
		Unstructured	A	B	C
		Hybrid	-	-	-
3.	Report access	Manual (Available)	-	-	-
		Manual (On-demand)	A	B	C
		Online access	-	-	-
Survey on the structure of the sessions
1.	Reporting method	Slide-based	-	-	-
		Logbook-based	A	B	C
		Case-based	A	B	C
2.	Reporter	Medical resident	A	-	-
		Medical intern	-	-	-
		Intern + Resident	-	B	C
3.	Patient selection	Head of the MR	A	-	C
		Attending resident	A	B	C
		Reporting person	-	-	C
4.	Facilitator	Fixed facilitator	A	-	C
		Interval facilitator (Faculty members)	-	B	-
		Interval facilitator (Medical residents)	-	-	-
5.	Participants	Medical residents	A	B	C
		Medical interns	-	B	C
		Medical Staggers	-	B	C
6.	Frequency of sessions	All non-holidays day	A	B	C
		Every other day	-	-	-
		Once a week	-	-	-
7.	Attendance control	Verbal control	-	-	-
		Electronic form	-	-	-
		Manual form	A	B	C
8.	Assessment	Written	-	B	-
		Verbal	-	-	C
		No assessment	A	-	-

Items extraction, validation, and categorization

58 information items were extracted from 120 reports. They were then validated and categorized by 10 experts into four categories using the two-round Delphi-technique. In the first round, all items with a score above 75% entered the second round. Experts also suggested six new items in this round, and a total of 64 items was achieved (Table 5).

Table 5. Delphi's first-round; Experts agreement quotient and new items suggestion

In the second round, the experts scored the 64 items using a 5-point Likert Scale. An initial investigation of the assigned scores showed that the scores did not follow a scattered pattern, and therefore, calculation of the mean score was practical. Accordingly, a cut-off point of 4 was set, and the items with a lower score were omitted.

Table 6 shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the scores assigned to each item. “Test of Vagina” and “Fundal Height” from the “Signs and Symptoms” category and “Blood Pressure” from the “Patient History” category, were assigned the perfect score (5±0). Based on the cut-off point of 4, “Menstrual Status” (3.7±1.06), “Date of Marriage” (3.4±1.17), and “Contraceptive Methods” (3.5±1.27) from the category of "General Patient Information", “Transfusion” (3.7±1.64), “Rh Incompatibility” (3.6±1.17), and “Cause of Drug Use” (3.7±1.16) from the “Patient History” category, “Contraction” (3.9±1.6), “Infected” (3.7±1.25) and “Estimated Fetal Weight” (3.7±0.95) from the “Signs and Symptoms” category, and also “Operation Report” (3.7±1.25) and “Neonatal Information” (3.7±0.82) from the category of “Rest of Information”, were removed based on the selected cut-off.

Table 6. Delphi's second-round; Scoring the items using the 5-point Likert Scale by experts

Structured Model of Clinical Morning Report

The structured clinical MR model was designed in two sections. The first section included general information about the MR and the second section contained patient-specific information. As can be seen in Appendix 1, the structured report consisted of 64 items classified into eleven categories based on experts’ opinions.

Model Evaluation

i. Initial Structure Evaluation

In the initial evaluation of the structured model of MR based on the face and content validity check, the “Gestational Age” item was moved from the “Signs and Symptoms” category to the “General Patient Information” category and then separated into two items of “Gestational Age with LMP” and “Gestational Age with Ultrasound”. Furthermore, the “Prenatal Care” item from the “Signs and Symptoms” category was moved to the “General Patient Information”. It should be noted that to enrich the content of the structured model, appropriate sub-items were defined by two experienced Gynecologists for the items (Table 1. Involved experts: C01, C02). Figure 1 shows the sub-items that were defined for the main items of structured form. Finally, space was added to the structured model for attaching clinical images and also entering the individual characteristics of the individual who is completing the report.

ii. Information Adequacy Evaluation

To assess the information adequacy of the structured MR, the items were assessed from the perspective of adequacy (and non-necessity on the other side) by the residents (n = 20), while allowing them to suggest their desired items. Chart 1 shows that 20% of residents (n=4) rated the adequacy level of the model as very high, 50% (n=10) as high, and 30% (n=6) as moderate. In this part, no assessor classified the items as low or very low. Moreover, 20% of residents (n=4) rated the presence of unnecessary items in the structured MR as very low, 70% (n=14) rated as low, and 10% (n=2) rated as moderate. In this part, no assessor classified the items as high or very high (in non-necessity). It should be noted that at this stage, six items were proposed by the residents in four categories, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Information Items Proposed by Residents

iii. Comparisonal Evaluation of All Three Formats

The analysis for the comparisonal evaluation of all three formats is shown in Chart 2. Based on this assessment, the SPF format scored highest on the items of “Preference for use” (50%), “Ease of archiving and retrieval” (80%), “Application in future research” (80%), and “ease of reporting” (50%). The SEF format also scored the highest on the two items including ”Clear understanding of patient status” (60%) and ”Readability” (75%). The conventional format received a lower score than the other two formats - except for the item of “Preference for use”, that had a score between the SPF and SEF (30%).

This study was aimed to develop a structured model for clinical MR documentation and presentation in the Obstetrics and Gynecology department of three teaching hospitals to improve the overall informational and presentation quality of morning report sessions. The model was developed in two formats: Structured Paper-based Form (SPF) and Structured Electronic Format (SEF). The overall format was developed in two sections: General Information and Patient-specific Information, which included 64 items in 11 categories. The prospective users of such model are gynecological residents who are in charge of running MR sessions almost every morning.

One of the crucial problems in clinical education is the lack of standardized documentation and, consequently, weakness in evidence-based medicine (12). In the current information systems, we also face problems such as widespread data, high data volume, and poor documentation (13). Our initial review of literature, globally and nationally, showed no evidence of any proposed uniform structure for morning report documentation and presentation, though, there were similarities among the practicing countries (including Iran), such as the number of meetings over a specific period (4,5,14), the person in charge of case presentation (14–16), session facilitators (4,14,17), the person responsible for patient selection, and type of individuals regularly attending sessions (4,5,18).

One of the purposes of MR sessions is to discuss different aspects of patients’ diagnosis and therapeutic options. Therefore, avoiding unnecessary information and having adequate and accurate information about patients is undisputable (5,19). According to the back-to-back chart regarding information adequacy of the structured form (Chart 1), 70% of residents estimated the presence of adequate items as high and very high, while 90% estimated the presence of unnecessary items as low and very low. Confirming the results on both sides of the chart showed that the developed structured model reliably covers information items to patients’ presentations in the MR sessions. The result of previous similar studies also confirm the results of our study (20–22).

In this study, twenty gynecological residents were provided 16 clinical MRs in order to compare three formats including conventional forms, SPF, and SEF (n=48). The results showed that 75% of residents indicated that the SEF format has more readability and 60% considered it a format providing a clearer understanding of patient status. This result can be interpreted as the potential benefits of electronic records as compared to paper formats. In another study, two formats of structured and free-text reporting were compared evaluating 330 reports by eleven experts from the perspective of content and clarity. The results showed that an individual's satisfaction and preference for using structured reports were significantly different from unstructured reports (23).

More than half of our residents believed that using SPF format will facilitate the reporting workflow. In a similar study, eleven experts from eight countries examined structured reports of radiology at the focus group meetings. Similar to our findings, this study concluded that workflow facilitation was a benefit of using structured reports (24). Selectivity in the creation of data elements for recording and collecting data is considered as a central part of Medicine Art (25). Therefore, selection and use of predefined datasets to generate reports can improve the workflow process of patient reports and data.

According to the results of Ganeshan’s study, one of the benefits of structured reporting is its positive impact on research and facilitation of data mining (26). The results of another study have also shown that using the structured form is useful for future research (27). It has also been shown that by implementing structured reports electronically, data mining and integration with decision support systems and clinical guidelines will improve (26). In the current study, with a significant difference, 80% of residents considered the SPF format as a more appropriate option for use in future research studies, which is in line with the results of the above-mentioned studies.

Archiving, maintaining, and retrieving reports documentation is a continuous communication process between clinical care team members that provides information on patients' health care status (28). This is essential for various educational and assessment purposes during MR sessions, but is nevertheless a challenging aspect of MR sessions (5,29). This challenge was covered in our study as our initial results showed that no standard system to archive and retrieve MR documents (Table 4). In the current study, for 80% of residents, SPF format was a better option for ease of archiving and information retrieval that could meet the information needs and improve the flow of documentation. Wrenn et al. used a structured form for patients referring to the emergency department over eight months, in which the results indicated a significant improvement in archiving and retrieval (27). Since the use of electronic databases can undoubtedly lead to better archiving and retrieval of information sources (30), it seems that the reason for this paradoxical deviation in residents' attitudes towards the paper format is mostly due to its structured appearance rather than the comparable potential values of SEF format, which contains both structure and archivability.

As the results showed, the preferred format for use by half of the residents was SPF and the other half preferred the conventional format (30%) and the SET format (20%), respectively. This comparison shows that practitioners prefer to use paper forms, whether in structured or free-text formats, compared to the use of computer systems. Using computer systems to enter clinical information is more difficult and less flexible than paper forms (31) and also data entry into the structured electronic form is more time demanding process (32). It is also worth noting that there is no teaching for ten-fingers typing in the Iranian education system and most residents are no exception. This is a very important observation, which explains why a lot of time is spent on typing, which results in an unwillingness to use electronic systems which requires rapid typing. Therefore, it seems that it will not only speed up reporting, but will also increase the workload and demand more time on the part of residents.

There were some limitations in our study. First, focusing on the opinions of local experts may reduce the generalizability of the developed model universally. However, we believe that the proposed methodology will be still useful in designing a similar local model in other countries. The study had also limited view in its medical focus on gynecology and obstetrics; however, we find no reason why our core proposition of giving structures to MR documentation could not benefit other departments as well.

Future studies in this area could take more advanced steps into incorporating automatic production of structured MR from free-text reports using Natural Language Processing (NLP). For this purpose, the obtained structure in this study can be used as a strong basis particularly in the area of obstetrics and gynecology. We also recommend future researchers to apply our methods to develop similar standards for structuring MR documentation in other areas of clinical specialties.

Investigating the information adequacy of the reports and providing the necessary items for presentation of cases in the MR sessions can enrich the clinical content and improve the educational and research quality of the reports. From the perspectives of the experts involved in the MR sessions of the gynecology department, the structured model was more valuable than the conventional format in terms of readability, improved documentation, easier archiving and retrieval as well as a better understanding of the patient's condition

Conﬂict of interest statement

There are no conﬂicts of interest for any of the authors.

Funding

This article was developed as part of a master thesis that is funded and supported by Mashhad University of Medical Sciences; Grant no. 921915.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all clinical experts and medical residents of Om-al-Banin Specialized Women's Hospital, and also the specialists and medical residents of the Obstetrics and Gynecology departments of Ghaem and Emam-Reza hospitals. We are also thankful to Dr. Tabesh for his contributions to data analysis.

Ethics statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate informed consent was not required to be obtained due to the nature of the study.

Spencer J. Learning and teaching in the clinical environment. BMJ. 2003 Mar 15;326(7389):591–4.
Parrino TA, Villanueva AG. The Principles and Practice of Morning Report. JAMA. 1986 Aug 8;256(6):730–3.
Ranse K, Grealish L. Nursing students’ perceptions of learning in the clinical setting of the Dedicated Education Unit. J Adv Nurs. 2007 Apr;58(2):171–9.
Amin Z, Guajardo J, Wisniewski W, Bordage G, Tekian A, Niederman LG. Morning Report: Focus and Methods over the Past Three Decades. Acad Med. 2000 Oct;75(Supplement):S1–5.
Mowla M. Morning Report: A Tool for Improving Medical Education. J Bangladesh Coll Physicians Surg. 2012 Jul 24;30(2):91–5.
Boushehri E, Khamseh ME, Farshchi A, Aghili R, Malek M, Valojerdi AE. Effects of morning report case presentation on length of stay and hospitalisation costs. Med Educ. 2013;47(7):711–6.
Wildman-Tobriner B, Allen BC, Bashir MR, Camp M, Miller C, Fiorillo LE, et al. Structured reporting of CT enterography for inflammatory bowel disease: effect on key feature reporting, accuracy across training levels, and subjective assessment of disease by referring physicians. Abdom Radiol. 2017;42(9):2243–2250.
Hussein R, Engelmann U, Schroeter A, Meinzer H-P. DICOM Structured Reporting. RadioGraphics. 2004 May 1;24(3):897–909.
Kuhn K, Gaus W, Wechsler JG, Janowitz P, Tudyka J, Kratzer W, et al. Structured Reporting of Medical Findings: Evaluation of a System in Gastroenterology. Methods Inf Med. 1992;31(04):268–74.
MLS MCA, Elizabeth M. Smigielski MA M, MS JLW, Mary T. Coleman MD P. Case Studies from Morning Report. Med Ref Serv Q. 2003 Jun 1;22(3):1–14.
Ramratnam B, Kelly G, Mega A, Tilkemeier P, Schiffman FJ. Determinants of Case Selection at Morning Report. J Gen Intern Med. 1997 May 1;12(5):263–6.
Yazdani S, Arab M, Hosseini F, Mansouri B, Yaghmaei M, Khoshgoftar Z, et al. Evaluation of the Structure of Morning Report Sessions of the Wards of Type One Educational Hospitals and Comparison with Announced Standards of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. Qom Univ Med Sci J. 2013 Apr 10;7(2):43–50.
Ahmadian L, Cornet R, Kalkman C, Keizer NF de. Development of a National Core Dataset for Preoperative Assessment. Methods Inf Med. 2009;48(2):155–61.
Razavi SM, Shahbaz Ghazvini S, Dabiran S. Students’ Benefit Rate from Morning Report Sessions and Its Related Factors in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2012 Feb 10;11(7):798–806.
Banks DE, Shi R, Timm DF, Christopher KA, Duggar DC, Comegys M, et al. Decreased hospital length of stay associated with presentation of cases at morning report with librarian support. J Med Libr Assoc JMLA. 2007 Oct;95(4):381–7.
Reilly B, Lemon M. Evidence-Based Morning Report: A Popular New Format in a Large Teaching Hospital. Am J Med. 1997 Nov 1;103(5):419–26.
Farhadifar F, Bahrami M, Yousefi F, Farazi E, Bahrami A. Comparative Study of Morning Report in Conventional & Evidence Based Medicine forms, from the Viewpoint of Medical Students. Res Med Educ. 2016 Apr 10;8(1):47–56.
Rabiei M, Saeidi M, Kiani MA, Amin SM, Ahanchian H, Jafari SA, et al. Selecting the patients for morning report sessions: case-based vs. conventional method. Electron Physician. 2015 Aug 10;7(4):1163–7.
Hosseini A, Moghaddasi H, Jahanbakhsh M. Designing minimum data sets of diabetes mellitus: Basis of effectiveness indicators of diabetes management. Health Inf Manag. 2010;7(3):330–40.
Kanegaye JT, Cheng JC, Ian McCaslin R, Trocinski D, Silva PD. Improved Documentation of Wound Care With a Structured Encounter Form in the Pediatric Emergency Department. Ambul Pediatr. 2005 Jul;5(4):253–7.
Johnson AJ, Chen MYM, Swan JS, Applegate KE, Littenberg B. Cohort Study of Structured Reporting Compared with Conventional Dictation. Radiology. 2009 Oct;253(1):74–80.
Marcovici PA, Taylor GA. JOURNAL CLUB: Structured Radiology Reports Are More Complete and More Effective Than Unstructured Reports. Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Dec;203(6):1265–71.
Schwartz LH, Panicek DM, Berk AR, Li Y, Hricak H. Improving Communication of Diagnostic Radiology Findings through Structured Reporting. Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):174–81.
Bosmans JML, Peremans L, Menni M, De Schepper AM, Duyck PO, Parizel PM. Structured reporting: if, why, when, how—and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging. 2012 Jun;3(3):295–302.
Shortliffe EH. Biomedical Informatics: The Science and the Pragmatics. In: Shortliffe EH, Cimino JJ, editors. Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine [Internet]. London: Springer; 2014 [cited 2020 Feb 23]. p. 3–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4474-8_1
Ganeshan D, Duong P-AT, Probyn L, Lenchik L, McArthur TA, Retrouvey M, et al. Structured Reporting in Radiology. Acad Radiol. 2018 Jan 1;25(1):66–73.
Wrenn K, Rodewald L, Lumb E, Slovis C. The use of structured, complaint-specific patient encounter forms in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1993 May;22(5):805–12.
Khorasani P, Rassouli M, Zagheri-Tafreshi M, Parvizy S, Nasr Esfahani M. Development and evaluation of" Patient Education Record" for structured documentation of patient education process. J Health Promot Manag. 2014;3(4):1–16.
Yazdani S, Arab M, Noghabaei G, Hosseini F. Quality dimensions of educational morning report sessions; short communication. J Med Edu. 2015 Jan 1;14(2):81–5.
Kassab MKI, Naser SSA, Shobaki MJA. An Analytical Study of the Reality of Electronic Documents and Electronic Archiving in the Management of Electronic Documents in the Palestinian Pension Agency (PPA). Eur Acad Res. 2017;4(12):10052–10102.
Poon AD, Fagan LM. PEN-Ivory: the design and evaluation of a pen-based computer system for structured data entry. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994;447–51.
Bush RA, Kuelbs C, Ryu J, Jiang W, Chiang G. Structured Data Entry in the Electronic Medical Record: Perspectives of Pediatric Specialty Physicians and Surgeons. J Med Syst. 2017 May;41(5):75.

Chart1.png
Chart 1.Results of investigating adequate and unnecessary information items in structured morning reporting model
Chart2.png
Chart 2. Comparison assessment of all three formats
Appendix1.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Improving Information Adequacy of Clinical Morning Reports: Development of a Structured Model in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Phase I: Studying current status of MR documentations

Phase II: Developing a Structured Model for Clinical Morning Reports

Phase III: Evaluation of the proposed model

Results

Survey of Current Status

Items extraction, validation, and categorization

Structured Model of Clinical Morning Report

Model Evaluation

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1