Dataset Information

Patient understanding of discharge instructions in the emergency department: do different patients need different approaches?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Previous studies have demonstrated that patients have poor understanding of the discharge instructions provided from the emergency department (ED). The aims of this study are to determine if patient factors, such as income and level of education, correlate with patient understanding of discharge instructions and to explore if different patient populations prefer different resources for receiving discharge instructions. METHODS:We conducted live observations of physicians providing discharge instructions in the ED to 100 patients followed by a patient survey to determine their understanding in four domains (diagnosis, treatment plan, follow-up instructions, and return to ED (RTED) instructions) and collect patient demographics. We enrolled patients over the age of 18 being discharged home. We excluded non-English- or French-speaking patients and those with significant psychiatric history or cognitive impairment. We performed a two-way ANOVA analysis of patient factors and patient understanding. RESULTS:We found that patients had poor understanding of discharge instructions, ranging from 24.0% having poor understanding of their follow-up plan to 64.0% for RTED instructions. Almost half (42%) of patients did not receive complete discharge instructions. Lower income was correlated with a significant decrease in patient understanding of discharge diagnosis (p?=?0.01) and RTED instructions (p?=?0.04). Patients who did not complete high school trended towards lower levels of understanding of their diagnosis and treatment plan (p?=?0.06). Lower income patients had a preference for receiving a follow-up phone call by a nurse, while higher income patients preferred online resources. CONCLUSIONS:Lower income patients and those who have not completed high school are at a higher risk of poor understanding discharge instructions. As new technological solutions emerge to aid patient understanding of discharge instructions, our study suggests they may not aid those who are at the highest risk of failing to understand their instructions.

SUBMITTER: Sheikh H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5805670 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient understanding of discharge instructions in the emergency department: do different patients need different approaches?

Sheikh Hasan H Brezar Aleksandar A Dzwonek Agata A Yau Lawrence L Calder Lisa A LA

International journal of emergency medicine 20180208 1

<h4>Background</h4>Previous studies have demonstrated that patients have poor understanding of the discharge instructions provided from the emergency department (ED). The aims of this study are to determine if patient factors, such as income and level of education, correlate with patient understanding of discharge instructions and to explore if different patient populations prefer different resources for receiving discharge instructions.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted live observations of physician ...[more]

PMID: 29423767

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim was to evaluate if the addition of video discharge instructions (VDIs) to usual verbal information improved the comprehension of information provided to caregivers of patients who consult for acute gastroenteritis (AGE). We conducted an open-label, parallel, randomized trial, enrolling patients who consulted for AGE at a tertiary hospital. First, caregivers answered a written test concerning AGE characteristics and management. They were randomly allocated to a control group, which received the usual verbal instructions, or to an intervention group, which additionally received VDI. After discharge, caregivers were contacted by telephone and answered the same test, satisfaction questions, and follow-up information. From September 2019 to March 2020, 139 patients were randomized, 118 completed follow-up. The mean score was 3.13 (SD 1.07) over 5 points in the initial test and 3.96 (SD 0.96) in the follow-up test. Patients in the intervention group had a greater improvement (1.17 points, SD 1.11) than those in the control group (0.47 points, SD 0.94, p < 0.001). In the follow-up test, 49.1% in the intervention group and 18.6% in the control group answered all questions correctly (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in return visits. Caregivers gave high satisfaction scores regardless of the allocation group.Conclusion: Video instructions improve caregivers' understanding of discharge information.Trial registration: [NCT04463355, retrospectively registered July 9, 2020]. What is Known: • Poor comprehension of discharge instructions leads to incorrect treatment after discharge, increased readmissions and a reduction of caregivers' satisfaction. • Video discharge instructions are useful providing concise information independently of the patients' health literacy level or communication skills of the health care provider What is New: • The addition of video discharge instructions to verbal instructions improves caregivers' knowledge about AGE improved with respect to those who only receive verbal instructions • Video instructions do not add extra time to the emergency department visits.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the completeness of Emergency Department (ED) discharge instructions before and after introduction of an electronic discharge instructions module by scoring compliance with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Outpatient Measure 19 (OP-19).MethodsWe performed a quasi-experimental study examining the impact of an electronic discharge instructions module in an academic ED. Three hundred patients discharged home from the ED were randomly selected from two time intervals: 150 patients three months before and 150 patients three to five months after implementation of the new electronic module. The discharge instructions for each patient were reviewed, and compliance for each individual OP-19 element as well as overall OP-19 compliance was scored per CMS specifications. Compliance rates as well as risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing the overall OP-19 scores and individual OP-19 element scores of the electronic and paper-based discharge instructions were calculated.ResultsThe electronic discharge instructions had 97.3% (146/150) overall OP-19 compliance, while the paper-based discharge instructions had overall compliance of 46.7% (70/150). Electronic discharge instructions were twice as likely to achieve overall OP-19 compliance compared to the paper-based format (RR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.75 - 2.48). The largest improvement was in documentation of major procedures and tests performed: only 60% of the paper-based discharge instructions satisfied this criterion, compared to 100% of the electronic discharge instructions (RD: 40.0%, 95% CI: 32.2% - 47.8%). There was a modest difference in medication documentation with 92.7% for paper-based and 100% for electronic formats (RD: 7.3%, 95% CI: 3.2% - 11.5%). There were no statistically significant differences in documentation of patient care instructions and diagnosis between paper-based and electronic formats.ConclusionWith careful design, information technology can improve the completeness of ED patient discharge instructions and performance on the OP-19 quality measure.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine whether patient-specific e-mails after surgical arthroscopy improve patient satisfaction and patient understanding of their procedure compared to traditional, preprinted discharge instructions.MethodsSixty patients who underwent surgical arthroscopy were prospectively, randomized into two separate groups. One cohort received a detailed e-mail of their procedure, discharge instructions, and labeled intraoperative arthroscopic images, while the second cohort received the standard preprinted instructions, while their arthroscopic images were discussed at the time of follow-up. The procedures were performed by a single surgeon. All patients were seen at 1-week follow-up and given a 14-question survey specific to their postoperative course, discharge instructions, and overall satisfaction using a 5-point Likert Scale. Demographic information was collected and data points comparing overall patient satisfaction, ease of understanding instructions, quality of information, and the number of times referenced were analyzed using nonparametric tests between the two cohorts.ResultsPatients in the e-mail cohort were significantly more satisfied with their surgery than patients in the printed cohort (medians: 5 versus 4, Wilcoxon chi-square = 9.98; P =.002). Patients in the e-mail cohort indicated that their instructions more greatly enhanced their overall understanding of their surgery (medians: 5 vs 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 10.84; P = .001) and were more helpful to their recovery (medians: 5 vs 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 7.37; P = .007). E-mail patients were significantly more likely to recommend similar instructions be sent to a friend undergoing surgery (medians: 5 versus 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 11.10; P < .001) and share their instructions with others 72% (18/25) versus 34.5% (10/29). There was no significant difference between the e-mail cohort and the print cohort for the number of times patients referred to their instructions (medians: 3 versus 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 2.41; P =.121).ConclusionsPatient-specific e-mailed discharge instructions improve patient satisfaction and overall understanding of the procedure compared with traditional printed discharge instructions after surgical arthroscopy.Level of evidenceLevel II, prospective randomized trial.

Project description:IntroductionThere are more than 80,000 emergency department (ED) visits for non-fatal bullet-related injuries (BRI) per year in the United States. Approximately half of these patients are discharged home from the ED. Our objective in this study was to characterize the discharge instructions, prescriptions, and follow-up plans provided to patients discharged from the ED after BRI.MethodsThis was a single-center, cross-sectional study of the first 100 consecutive patients who presented to an urban, academic, Level I trauma center ED with an acute BRI beginning on January 1, 2020. We queried the electronic health record for patient demographics, insurance status, cause of injury, hospital arrival and discharge timestamps, discharge prescriptions, and documented instructions regarding wound care, pain management, and follow-up plans. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.ResultsDuring the study period, 100 patients presented to the ED with an acute firearm injury. Patients were predominantly young (median age 29, interquartile range 23-38 years), male (86%), Black (85%), non-Hispanic (98%), and uninsured (70%). We found that 12% of patients did not receive any type of written wound care instruction, while 37% received discharge paperwork that included instructions to take both an NSAID and acetaminophen. Fifty-one percent of patients received an opioid prescription, with a range from 3-42 tablets (median 10 tablets). The proportion of patients receiving an opioid prescription was significantly higher among White patients (77%) than among Black patients (47%).ConclusionThere is variability in prescriptions and instructions provided to survivors of bullet injuries upon ED discharge at our institution. Our data indicates that standardized discharge protocols could improve quality of care and equity in the treatment of patients who have survived a BRI. Current variable quality in discharge planning is an entry point for structural racism and disparity.

Dataset Information

Patient understanding of discharge instructions in the emergency department: do different patients need different approaches?

Publications

Patient understanding of discharge instructions in the emergency department: do different patients need different approaches?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets