PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16178164

Computerised versus handwritten records.

Mandi Whyte
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The death of Victoria Climbié highlighted the worst possible consequences of inadequate record keeping. A serious case review raised concerns about the quality of record keeping in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of a large UK children's hospital and an audit was undertaken to compare the standard of handwritten nursing records in the PICU with that of the computerised nursing records in the high dependency unit (HDU). Record keeping in both PICU and HDU was found to be sub-standard in many respects. Both types of record keeping have their faults but the computerised system can potentially compensate for some of the errors and omissions that were apparent in the handwritten records. Nurses require regular training to reinforce record keeping knowledge and skills: this has been incorporated into the hospital's mandatory training programme.

Explore related subjects

Abbreviations as TopicBenchmarkingChildChild AbuseClinical CompetenceGuideline AdherenceGuidelines as TopicHandwritingHospitals, PediatricHumansIntensive Care Units, PediatricMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedNursing AssessmentNursing AuditNursing Evaluation ResearchNursing RecordsNursing Staff, HospitalPatient Care PlanningPediatric NursingUnited KingdomComparative StudyEvaluation StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mandi Whyte. 2005. Computerised versus handwritten records.. https://doi.org/10.7748/paed2005.09.17.7.15.c997

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Writing good abstracts.

INTRODUCTION: Writing an abstract means to extract and summarize (AB - absolutely, STR - straightforward, ACT - actual data presentation and interpretation). Thousands of abstracts are submitted to stroke conferences each year. The following suggestions may improve the chances of your work being selected for presentation, and to communicate results in the most efficient and unambiguous way. TITLE AND STRUCTURE: Make the title dynamic and informative, rather than descriptive. Structure the abstract following the IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) principle for your future original paper where background would become Introduction and conclusions would enter Discussion. Select the appropriate category for submission carefully. This determines which experts grade the abstract and the session where your competitors represent their work. If selected appropriately, your abstract is more likely to be graded by peers with similar interests and familiarity with your work or field. Methods should describe the study design and tools of data acquisition shortly, not data. RESULTS: Provide data that answer the research question. Describe most important data with numbers and statistics. Make your point with data, not speculations and opinions. Abbreviations should be avoided and only be used after they have been spelled out or defined. Common mistakes include failure to state the hypothesis, rationale for the study, sample size and conclusions. Highlight the novelty of your work by carefully chosen straightforward wording. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusions have to be based on the present study findings. Make sure your abstract is clear, concise and follows all rules. Show your draft to colleagues for critique, and if you are not a native English speaker show it to a person who can improve/correct your text. Remember that accepted abstracts of completed original research should be followed by published original papers - if this is not intended or fails, it may indicate an impaired ability to succeed in scientific writing and an academic career.

Abbreviations as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Another ERICA trial?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Abbreviations as Topic↗