Reviewing fluid balance charts is a simple and effective method of assessing and monitoring the hydration status of patients. Several articles report that these charts are often either inaccurately or incompletely filled thereby limiting their usefulness in clinical practice. We had a similar experience in our practice at Kettering General Hospital and conducted a quality improvement project with a goal to increase the number of charts that were completely and accurately filled by a minimum of 50% in a 1-month period and to reassess the sustainability of this improvement after 6 months. Data from baseline measurements showed that only 25% of the charts in the ward had accurate measurements, 20% had correct daily totals and 14% had complete records of all intakes and losses. We collected feedback from nursing staff in the ward on what challenges they faced in using these charts and how best to support them. Corroborated by evidence from the literature, we discovered that inadequate training was a major factor responsible for the poor quality of documentation in these charts. Using simultaneous plan–do–study–act cycles, we designed and delivered personalised teaching on fluid balance chart documentation to the nursing staff. Subsequent data showed remarkable improvements in all the parameters we assessed. For instance, the proportion of charts with accurate measurements increased by 55% and those with complete entries by 122%. Unfortunately, we were unable to demonstrate sustainability of these improvements as our second set of data collection coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. In this project, we were able to demonstrate that simple and cost-efficient measures such as adequate training of nursing staff could remarkably improve the quality of fluid balance charts used in our hospitals. We suggest that this training should be included as part of the regular competency assessments for nurses and other healthcare staff.

An elderly woman aged 66 presented to a general hospital with left-sided facial paresis, bilateral lower limb weakness, and back pain. After undergoing clinical assessments and investigations, she was diagnosed and treated as a case of acute stroke. Two weeks later, she was repatriated to our hospital for neuro-rehabilitation. Unconvinced, we revisited her clinical history and, after a thorough physical examination, made a clinical diagnosis of GuillainBarre Syndrome (GBS), i.e., confirmed by electrophysiological studies. She was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin and made a complete recovery 6 weeks later. This case highlights an infrequent presentation of GBS as a stroke-mimic. It re-emphasizes the need to maintain a high index of clinical suspicion for similar expressions, especially in busy acute medical units. Such cases are easily missed if basic clinical skills, such as good historytaking and thorough physical examination, are glossed over. Despite time constraints, these skills are indispensable in clinical practice.