Dataset Information

Improving best practise for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Discharge documents are important for transferring information from hospitals to the referring clinician; in the UK and many countries, this is often the patient's general practitioner or family physician. However, patients may or may not receive their discharge letters, and whether patients should routinely receive discharge letters remains unclear.

Methods and analysis

The review will consolidate evidence on patients receiving discharge letters through the theory-driven approach of a realist review.The review will be conducted systematically and seek to explain how, why, for whom and in what contexts does this practice 'work'. The review will specifically explore whether there are benefits of this practice and if so what are the important contexts for triggering the mechanisms associated with these outcome benefits. Negative effects will also be considered.Several steps will occur: devising initial rough programme theory, searching the evidence, selecting relevant documents, extracting data, synthesising and finally programme theory refinement. As the process is viewed as iterative, this cycle of steps may be repeated as many times as is necessary to reach theoretical saturation and may not be linear.The initial programme theory will be tested and refined throughout the review process and by stakeholder involvement of National Health Service (NHS) policy makers, practitioners and service users.

Ethics and dissemination

Formal ethical review is not required. The resulting programme theory is anticipated to explain how the intervention of patients receiving written discharge communication may work in practice, for whom and in what contexts; this will inform best practice of patients receiving discharge communication. The review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations and discussions with relevant organisations and stakeholders. While the review will be from the perspective of the UK NHS, its findings should be relevant to other healthcare systems.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017069863.

SUBMITTER: Weetman K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695342 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving best practise for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol.

Weetman Katharine K Wong Geoffrey G Scott Emma E Schnurr Stephanie S Dale Jeremy J

BMJ open 20171112 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Discharge documents are important for transferring information from hospitals to the referring clinician; in the UK and many countries, this is often the patient's general practitioner or family physician. However, patients may or may not receive their discharge letters, and whether patients should routinely receive discharge letters remains unclear.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>The review will consolidate evidence on patients receiving discharge letters through the theory-dr ...[more]

PMID: 29133330

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand how different outcomes are achieved from adult patients receiving hospital discharge letters from inpatient and outpatient settings.DesignRealist review conducted in six main steps: (1) development of initial theory, (2) searching, (3) screening and selection, (4) data extraction and analysis, (5) data synthesis and (6) programme theory (PT) refinement.Eligibility criteriaDocuments reporting evidence that met criteria for relevance to the PT. Documents relating solely to mental health or children aged <18?years were excluded.AnalysisData were extracted and analysed using a realist logic of analysis. Texts were coded for concepts relating to context, mechanism, outcome configurations (CMOCs) for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters. All outcomes were considered. Based on evidence and our judgement, CMOCs were labelled 'positive' or 'negative' in order to clearly distinguish between contexts where the intervention does and does not work.Results3113 documents were screened and 103 were included. Stakeholders contributed to refining the PT in step 6. The final PT included 48 CMOCs for how outcomes are affected by patients receiving discharge letters. 'Patient choice' emerged as a key influencer to the success (or not) of the intervention. Important contexts were identified for both 'positive' CMOCs (eg, no new information in letter) and 'negative' CMOCs (eg, letter sent without verifying patient contact details). Two key findings were that patient understanding is possibly greater than clinicians perceive, and that patients tend to express strong preference for receiving letters. Clinician concerns emerged as a barrier to wider sharing of discharge letters with patients, which may need to be addressed through organisational policies and direction.ConclusionsThis review forms a starting point for explaining outcomes associated with whether or not patients receive discharge letters. It suggests several ways in which current processes might be modified to support improved practice and patient experience.

Project description:670 patients attend Wansbeck General Hospital each year for elective and emergency permanent pacemaker insertion or modification. Elective patients for new devices attend the cardiology department on the day of procedure and are clerked onto the cardiology ward after insertion. Patients are discharged home the following day with a letter typed by a junior doctor. Prior to October 2011, junior doctors were unaware of any guidelines regarding content of discharge letters due to poor accessibility. Vital information such as pacemaker model and indication for implantation were frequently absent from the typed summaries. In October 2011, the cardiology department reviewed the guidelines establishing the information required in all discharge summaries for pacemaker implantation and these guidelines were published on the ward in an easy to follow proforma for any junior doctor typing letters. Eight essential criteria should be included in each letter; date and indication for insertion, pacemaker type, make and model, access route, complications, chest x-ray and device check results, and follow-up details. Finally, a copy of the letter was to be sent to the cardiology department for clinic follow-up. Ten letters were audited prior to the proforma being issued. 0 letters contained 100% of the required information. Main criteria missing in most letters included indication for insertion (50%), make of device (0%), the route of access (10%) and cc to cardiology department (0%). 70 letters were audited in October 2012, one year following introduction of the discharge proforma.100% of letters contained all of the eight essential criteria required by the departmental guidelines. 53% of the letters were also received by the cardiology department. In conclusion, a set of easy to follow guidelines in the form of a published document on the cardiology ward has produced dramatic improvement in the quality of e-discharge letters for patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.

Project description:BackgroundUK government guidelines and initiatives emphasise equity in delivery of care, shared decision-making, and patient-centred care. This includes sharing information with patients as partners in health decisions and empowering them to manage their health effectively. In the UK, general practitioners (GPs) routinely receive hospital discharge letters; while patients receiving copies of such letters is seen as "good practice" and recommended, it is not standardised. The effects and consequences of whether or not this happens remains unclear. The aim of this study (one of three forming the Discharge Communication Study) was to explore patient perspectives on receiving discharge letters and their views on how this could be improved in order to optimise patient experience and outcomes.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of 50 patients recruited from 17 GP surgeries within the West Midlands, UK. All participants were adults with a recent episode of general hospital inpatient or outpatient care. Data were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using mixed methods corpus linguistics techniques.ResultsParticipants reported inconsistent access to discharge letters. Most wanted to receive a copy of their discharge letter although some expressed reservations. Perceived benefits included: increased understanding of their condition and treatment, reduced anxiety, and increased satisfaction. Consequences where participants had not received letters included: letter inaccuracies being overlooked, missed follow up actions, failure to fully remember diagnosis, treatment, or self-management or recommendations, and confusion and anxiety at what occurred and what will happen next. Participants felt the usefulness of receiving copies of letters could be increased by: including a patient information section, avoidance of acronyms, and jargon or technical terms explained with lay language.ConclusionsMost patients value receiving copies of hospital discharge letters, and should be consistently offered them. Patients' preferences for letter receipt could be logged in their health records. To enable positive outcomes letters should have a clear and accessible format that reflects the priorities and information needs of patients. Patients appear not to be receiving or being offered copies of letters consistently despite UK policies and guidelines supporting this practice; this suggests a need for greater standardisation of practice.

Project description:Introduction Considerable observational evidence suggests that cancer online support groups reduce feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety, enhance coping and self-management, and lead to better informed patients. Other studies indicate that cancer online support groups can increase distress. Yet no studies theorise the complex, context-dependent mechanisms by which cancer online support groups generate their—sometimes contrasting—outcomes. Methods and analysis Guided by an integrated knowledge translation approach and the strategy for patient-oriented research, we will conduct a realist review of cancer online support groups in partnership with stakeholders. We will follow Pawson’s five steps and existing quality standards to develop a program theory that explains how cancer online support groups work, for whom and in what circumstances. The specific research questions will be: what positive and negative outcomes have been reported on cancer online support groups? What are the mechanisms that are associated with these outcomes, in which contexts and for whom? Through a rigorous review of relevant scientific and grey literature, as well as ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, a program theory will be developed to explain who benefits from cancer online support groups and who does not, what benefits they derive (or do not), and the factors that affect these outcomes. Ethics and dissemination The use of secondary data for this review precludes the need for ethical approval. Dissemination will be informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and will consist of tailored knowledge products that are conceived of collaboratively with stakeholders. These will include peer-reviewed publications on how cancer online support groups can be optimised and best practice recommendations to maximise the benefits experienced by people with cancer. These traditional scientific outputs, along with their respective evidence summaries, will be amplified through strategic social media events hosted and promoted by knowledge users. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021250046.

Project description:ObjectiveThe overarching objective of the scoping review was to examine peer reviewed and grey literature for best practices that have been developed, implemented and/or evaluated for delayed discharge involving a hospital setting. Two specific objectives were to review what the delayed discharge initiatives entailed and identify gaps in the literature in order to inform future work.DesignScoping review.MethodsElectronic databases and websites of government and healthcare organisations were searched for eligible articles. Articles were required to include an initiative that focused on delayed discharge, involve a hospital setting and be published between 1 January 2004 and 16 August 2019. Data were extracted using Microsoft Excel. Following extraction, a policy framework by Doern and Phidd was adapted to organise the included initiatives into categories: (1) information sharing; (2) tools and guidelines; (3) practice changes; (4) infrastructure and finance and (5) other.ResultsSixty-six articles were included in this review. The majority of initiatives were categorised as practice change (n=36), followed by information sharing (n=19) and tools and guidelines (n=19). Numerous initiatives incorporated multiple categories. The majority of initiatives were implemented by multidisciplinary teams and resulted in improved outcomes such as reduced length of stay and discharge delays. However, the experiences of patients and families were rarely reported. Included initiatives also lacked important contextual information, which is essential for replicating best practices and scaling up.ConclusionsThis scoping review identified a number of initiatives that have been implemented to target delayed discharges. While the majority of initiatives resulted in positive outcomes, delayed discharges remain an international problem. There are significant gaps and limitations in evidence and thus, future work is warranted to develop solutions that have a sustainable impact.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate medication and polypharmacy increase morbidity, hospitalisation rate, costs and mortality in multimorbid patients. At hospital discharge of elderly patients, polypharmacy is often even more pronounced than at admission. However, the optimal discharge strategy in view of sustained medication appropriateness remains unclear. In particular, unreflectingly switching back to the pre-hospitalisation medication must be avoided. Therefore, both the patients and the follow-up physicians should be involved in the discharge process. In this study, we aim to test whether a brief medication review which takes the patients' priorities into account, combined with a standardised communication strategy at hospital discharge, leads to sustained medication appropriateness and extends readmission times among elderly multimorbid patients.MethodsThe study is designed as a two-armed, double-blinded, cluster-randomised trial, involving 42 senior hospital physicians (HPs) with their junior HPs and 2100 multimorbid patients aged 60 years or older. Using a randomised minimisation strategy, senior HPs will be assigned to either intervention or control group. Following instructions of the study team, the senior HPs in the intervention group will teach their junior HPs how to integrate a simple medication review tool combined with a defined communication strategy into their ward's discharge procedure. The untrained HPs in the control group will provide data on usual care, and their patients will be discharged following usual local routines. Primary outcome is the time until readmission within 6 months after discharge, and secondary outcomes cover readmission rates, number of emergency and GP visits, classes and numbers of drugs prescribed, proportions of potentially inappropriate medications, and the patients' quality of life after discharge. Additionally, the characteristics of both the HPs as well as the patients will be collected before the intervention. Process evaluation outcomes will be assessed parallel to the ongoing core study using qualitative research methods.DiscussionSo far, interventions to reduce polypharmacy are still scarce at the crucial interface between HPs and GPs. To our knowledge, this trial is the first to analyse the combination of a brief deprescribing intervention with a standardised communication strategy at hospital discharge and in the early post-discharge period.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN18427377 . Registered 11 January 2018.

Project description:BackgroundSharing information about hospital care with primary care in the form of a discharge summary is essential to patient safety. In the United Kingdom, although discharge summary targets on timeliness have been achieved, the quality of discharge summaries' content remains variable.MethodsMixed methods study in West Midlands, England with three parts: 1. General Practitioners (GPs) sampling discharge summaries they assessed to be "successful" or "unsuccessful" exemplars, 2. GPs commenting on the reasons for their letter assessment, and 3. surveying the hospital clinicians who wrote the sampled letters for their views. Letters were examined using content analysis; we coded 15 features (e.g. "diagnosis", "GP plan") based on relevant guidelines and standards. Free text comments were analysed using corpus linguistics, and survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsFifty-three GPs participated in selecting discharge letters; 46 clinicians responded to the hospital survey. There were statistically significant differences between "successful" and "unsuccessful" inpatient letters (n = 375) in relation to inclusion of the following elements: reason for admission (99.1% vs 86.5%); diagnosis (97.4% vs 74.5%), medication changes (61.5% vs 48.9%); reasons for medication changes (32.1% vs 18.4%); hospital plan/actions (70.5% vs 50.4%); GP plan (69.7% vs 53.2%); information to patient (38.5% vs 24.8%); tests/procedures performed (97.0% vs 74.5%), and test/examination results (96.2% vs 77.3%). Unexplained acronyms and jargon were identified in the majority of the sample (≥70% of letters). Analysis of GP comments highlighted that the overall clarity of discharge letters is important for effective and safe care transitions and that they should be relevant, concise, and comprehensible. Hospital clinicians identified several barriers to producing "successful" letters, including: juniors writing letters, time limitations, writing letters retrospectively from patient notes, and template restrictions.ConclusionsThe failure to uniformly implement national discharge letter guidance into practice is continuing to contribute to unsuccessful communication between hospital and general practice. While the study highlighted barriers to producing high quality discharge summaries which may be addressed through training and organisational initiatives, it also indicates a need for ongoing audit to ensure the quality of letters and so reduce patient risk at the point of hospital discharge.

Project description:BackgroundPain is one of the most common, feared, and unpleasant symptoms associated with surgery. However, there is a clear gap in patient care after surgical patients are discharged from hospital, resulting in poorly controlled postoperative pain. Inadequate pain management after discharge can have detrimental effects on quality of life and lead to the development of chronic postsurgical pain. The severity of postoperative pain before discharge is well described, but less emphasis has been placed on assessing pain at home after hospital discharge.ObjectiveThe objective of this review is to summarize the prevalence of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain within the first 1 to 14 days after hospital discharge.MethodsA detailed search of epidemiological studies investigating postoperative pain will be conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception until the date the searches are run. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients reporting moderate-to-severe postoperative pain at rest and with movement within the first 1 to 14 days after hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes will include a comparison of postoperative pain after discharge between patients who underwent ambulatory and inpatient surgery, and adverse outcomes attributable to poor pain control after hospital discharge (eg, readmission to hospital, emergency room or other unplanned medical visits, or a decrease in quality of life).ResultsThe protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020194346). The search strategies for MEDLINE and EMBASE have been completed. The final results are expected to be published in May 2021.ConclusionsThis systematic review is expected to synthesize evidence describing the prevalence of postoperative pain after hospital discharge. Available epidemiological evidence may help inform the magnitude of the problem of postoperative pain at home after hospital discharge.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020194346; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194346.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/22437.

Project description:IntroductionThe National Health Service (NHS) Long-Term Plan (2019) acknowledges that children and young people with suspected autism wait too long for diagnostic assessment and sets out to reduce waiting times. However, diagnostic pathways vary with limited evidence on what model works best, for whom and in what circumstances. The National Autism Plan for Children (2003) recommended that assessment should be completed within 13 weeks but referral to diagnosis can take as long as 799 days.This Rapid Realist Review (RRR) is the first work package in a national programme of research: a Realist Evaluation of Autism ServiCe Delivery (RE-ASCeD). We explore how particular approaches may deliver high-quality and timely autism diagnostic services for children with possible autism; high quality is defined as compliant with National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence (2011) guidelines, and timely as a pathway lasting no more than one calendar year, based on previous work.Methods and analysisRRR is a well-established approach to synthesising evidence within a compressed timeframe to identify models of service delivery leading to desired outcomes. RRR works backwards from intended outcomes, identified by NICE guidelines and the NHS England Long-Term Plan. The focus is a clearly defined intervention (the diagnostic pathway), associated with specific outcomes (high quality and timely), within a particular set of parameters (Autism and Child & Adolescent Mental Health services in the UK). Our Expert Stakeholder Group consists of policymakers, content experts and knowledge users with a wide range of experience to supplement, tailor and expedite the process. The RRR is consistent with Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) and includes identifying the research question, searching for information, quality appraisal, data extraction, synthesising the evidence, validation of findings with experts and dissemination.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval not required. Findings will inform the wider RE-ASCeD evaluation and be reported to NHS England.Trial registration numberNCT04422483. This protocol relates to Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Improving best practise for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Improving best practise for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets