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.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call