Evaluation of Record Keeping in Exodontia Department of Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore: A Clinical Audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An audit was conducted in the exodontia department of Punjab Dental Hospital, Lahore, to assess the quality of records being kept by the undergraduate students in their third and final year, who form a major chunk of the workforce in the hospital, working in the mentioned department. The main objective behind this exercise was to improve the standards of record keeping and bring them in line with the standards practiced around the world, ultimately resulting in better patient care. METHODOLOGY: This audit was undertaken while keeping in view all the necessary steps of a successful clinical audit. Initially, 150 records were randomly obtained from undergraduates of both third and fourth years and evaluated against a modified CRABEL score, which grades the records on a scale of 100. The results of this part of the audit were shared with the batches that were doing their clinical rotation in exodontia at the time of this audit, and a teaching session was conducted on better record-keeping standards. Following this, a repetition of the previous audit was undertaken to complete the audit cycle. Results: The most commonly omitted component in the records in the initial audit was the patient complaint closely, followed by proper medical history and supervisor signatures. In the following, 'reaudit' compliance was seen to be improved, and all the components of record-keeping less commonly being omitted except medical history and date. CONCLUSION: A more comprehensive patient record keeping is possible with proper intervention and inculcation of record-keeping awareness in the undergraduate course, especially in the clinical years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".