Abstract
Abstract Aim To Identify our compliance with GMC guidelines for use of a chaperon in urology outpatient clinic. Method 1st audit included a total of 12 urologists in our team (6 consultants and 6 SpR) For each urologist, we checked records for 10 patients who attended urology OPD and had a physical examination as evidenced in the notes and/ or clinic letter N = 120 patient records checked Each urologist was given a score ( 0 = if no mention of a chaperone, 1 = if a chaperone was just mentioned or 2 = if the chaperone is identified by name or signature) Results We found propre documentation of a chaperone in only 75.25% of clinical notes and 14.6% of clinic letters. At individual level, there were poor scores for most urologists involved. Following the discussion of the 1st audit results in the urology clinical governance meeting, posters were made to raise awareness of the audit outcome as well as direct discussions with the urology team members to encourage them to improve their scores in the re audit cycle. Re audit showed significant improvement was achieved for individual as well as overall documentation in 85% of clinical notes and more than 50% of clinic letters. Conclusions As per GMC guidelines: The offer, and use, of a chaperone, including their full name and designation, should be clearly documented in patients’ notes. This can be achieved and emphasized by raising awareness of this good medical practice.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.