Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 8;16(12):e75309.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.75309. eCollection 2024 Dec.

Standardized Neonatal ICU Progress Note Template and Feedback System: A Clinical Documentation Improvement Initiative

Affiliations

Standardized Neonatal ICU Progress Note Template and Feedback System: A Clinical Documentation Improvement Initiative

Fahad Butt et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Introduction This quality improvement (QI) initiative aimed to improve the clinical documentation of daily progress notes in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) by applying a standardized documentation template and conducting regular cycles of audit and feedback to ensure compliance and improvement. Methods Firstly, to better assess documentation practices impacting patient care, members of the NICU auditing team identified seven key points in medical records. These points were then used for the audit of 30 randomly selected "progress notes" for infants admitted to the NICU between January and June 2022. We introduced a new standardized progress note template in the NICU based on the initial seven key points considered essential in NICU documentation. Subsequently, we educated the staff on the latest changes and their impact on patient care delivery. Also, we raised awareness among the NICU staff regarding the quality improvement project we were running and the requirement to adopt the new standard template. We also ensured that everyone had access to the new template. The QI team analyzed NICU progress notes every three months from October 2022 to July 2023; 45 notes were reviewed per cycle, a total of 135 notes. With each cycle, we took feedback from NICU team members regarding the deficiencies and opportunities for improvement in clinical documentation and encouraged adherence to key points. A template for the specific needs of the NICU was redesigned based on feedback received from all stakeholders on how to reduce the obstacles in adopting and retaining compliance with the new template. Results Compliance with the "key elements" of documentation improved dramatically after introducing a new template and feedback system. In the final cycle, the overall compliance was 81% (p<0.0001), well above our initial target of 60% compliance. Conclusion A unit that implements targeted audit-and-feedback measures relevant to the clinical team requirement can substantially and consistently improve documentation.

Keywords: clinical documentation audit; clinical documentation improvement; errors in documentation; neonatal care; neonatal intensive care unit (nicu); nicu documentation; pediatrics and neonatology; plan-do-study-act (pdsa); quality improvement and patient safety; quality improvement projects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ishikawa diagram of the project

Similar articles

References

    1. A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice. Hassey A, Gerrett D, Wilson A. BMJ. 2001;322:1401–1405. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Resident documentation discrepancies in a neonatal intensive care unit. Carroll AE, Tarczy-Hornoch P, O'Reilly E, Christakis DA. Pediatrics. 2003;111:976–980. - PubMed
    1. Variation in physicians’ electronic health record documentation and potential patient harm from that variation. Cohen GR, Friedman CP, Ryan AM, Richardson CR, Adler-Milstein J. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2355–2367. - PMC - PubMed
    1. The impact of structured and standardized documentation on documentation quality; a multicenter, retrospective study. Ebbers T, Kool RB, Smeele LE, et al. J Med Syst. 2022;46:46. - PMC - PubMed
    1. The impact of feedback to medical housestaff on chart documentation and quality of care in the outpatient setting. Opila DA. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:352–356. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources