Open Access
Volume 1, 2015
Article Number 29
Number of page(s) 4
Section Hip
Published online 02 November 2015
  1. The Royal College of Surgeons of England (1994) Guidelines for clinicians on medical records and notes. London, RCSE. [Google Scholar]
  2. General Medical Council Good medical practice, [Google Scholar]
  3. Medical Protection Society (2004) Casebook: falling on deaf ears. Vol. 12, 4, London, MPS. p. 24. [Google Scholar]
  4. Saunders M (1998) Problems with notes. J Med Defence 297, 1256–1259. [Google Scholar]
  5. Crawford JR, Hay D, Coleman N (2006) Hip fracture documentation – the impact of shift systems. Injury 37(2), 134–137. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Crawford JR, Beresford TP, Lafferty K (2001) The CRABEL score – a method for auditing medical records. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 83, 65–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Viera AJ, Garrett GM (2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the Kappa statistic. Fam Med 37(5), 360–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. J Cowan (2000) Clinical governance and clinical documentation: still a long way to go? Clin Perform Qual Health Care 8, 179–182. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lyons R, Payne C, McCabe M, Fielder C (1998) Legibility of doctor’s handwriting: quantitative comparative study. BMJ 317, 863–864. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Berwick D, Winickoff N (1996) The truth about doctor’s handwriting: a prospective study. BMJ 313, 1657–1658. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Liyanage SE, Thyagarajan S, Khemka S, Blades M, de Alwis DV (2006) Audit of the quality of documentation in an eye casualty department. Clinical Governance 11, 187–192. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dhariwal DK, Gibbons AJ (2004) The CRABEL score – setting standards in Maxillofacial medical note keeping. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42, 200–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tuffaha H, Amer T, Jayia P, Bicknell C, Rajaretnam N, Ziprin P (2012) The STAR score: a method for auditing clinical records. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 94(4), 235–239. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.