Dataset Information

Beyond Discharge Summaries: Communication Preferences in Care Transitions Between Hospitalists and Primary Care Providers Using Electronic Medical Records.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ineffective transitions of care continue to be a source of risk for patients. Although there has been widespread implementation of electronic medical record (EMR) systems, little is currently known about hospitalists' and primary care providers' (PCPs) direct communication preferences at discharge using messaging capabilities in a shared EMR system.

Objective

We examined how hospitalists and PCPs with a shared EMR prefer to directly communicate at the time of hospital discharge by identifying preferred modes, information prioritization, challenges, facilitators, and proposed solutions.

Design

A sequential, explanatory mixed methods study with surveys and semi-structured interviews.

Participants

Thirty-eight academic hospitalists and 63 PCPs working in outpatient clinics in a single safety net hospital system with a shared EMR.

Main approach

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses. Interviews were analyzed using immersion/crystallization and a mixture of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

Key results

PCPs preferred direct communication at discharge through a message within the EMR while hospitalists preferred a message within the EMR and email. Qualitative results identified key themes related to patient care and direct communication: value of direct communication, safety, social determinants of health, and clinical judgment. Both groups prioritized direct communication for high-risk medications, pending and follow-up studies, and high-risk patients that hospitalists were concerned about. Overall, both hospitalists and PCPs reported that ensuring patient safety, flagging patients with social challenges, and expressing concerns about patients based on clinical judgment were key communication priorities.

Conclusions

Hospitalists and primary care providers report considerable overlap in preferences for direct communication at the time of hospital discharge through a shared EMR. Specifically, both groups reported similar concerns regarding patient safety and continuity during transitions. Direct messaging within the EMR could enable "closed loop" communication that helps ensure safe transitions of care for high-risk patients.

SUBMITTER: Munchhof A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7280409 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose: Effective communication between young adult (YA; aged 18-39 years) cancer survivors and their health care providers is critical for managing post-treatment symptoms. Yet, little is known about YAs' and providers' preferences for and barriers to symptom communication, variables important for developing interventions to improve and optimize YA-provider communication. Methods: YA survivors (N = 21) and oncology providers (N = 11) rank ordered their preferred methods for symptom communication and top communication barriers. Interviews were conducted to obtain qualitative data (i.e., preferred methods for, barriers, and suggestions to improve symptom communication). Interviews were transcribed, and thematic qualitative analysis was used. Results: Sixty-two percent of YAs preferred communicating using the electronic messaging system affiliated with the medical record (MyChart), whereas providers (100%) preferred communicating during in-person clinic visits. Qualitative data from YAs pointed to benefits of MyChart, including ease of use and rapid responses. Providers acknowledged that, although efficient, high message volumes and expectations for rapid responses were barriers to MyChart. Providers described benefits of in-person visits, including visually assessing patients' concerns, providing immediate support, and more safely managing symptoms. Lack of time (48%) was YAs' top communication barrier, whereas providers endorsed patients not bringing up symptoms (64%). Qualitative data reflected patient-level (e.g., embarrassment/discomfort, lack of skills) and provider-level (e.g., forgetting to ask about a symptom) barriers. YAs and providers offered strategies to improve communication. Conclusion: Survivor- and provider-level communication interventions that account for YAs' and providers' differing communication preferences and directly address communication barriers unique to survivors' developmental stage may be necessary to improve symptom communication.

Project description:Around 110,000 people spend time in critical care units in England and Wales each year. The transition of care from the intensive care unit to the general ward exposes patients to potential harms from changes in healthcare providers and environment. Nurses working on general wards report anxiety and uncertainty when receiving patients from critical care. An innovative form of enhanced capability critical care outreach called 'iMobile' is being provided at King's College Hospital (KCH). Part of the remit of iMobile is to review patients who have been transferred from critical care to general wards. The iMobile team wished to improve the quality of critical care discharge summaries. A collaborative evidence-based quality improvement project was therefore undertaken by the iMobile team at KCH in conjunction with researchers from King's Improvement Science (KIS). Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) methodology was used. Three PDSA cycles were undertaken. Methods adopted comprised: a scoping literature review to identify relevant guidelines and research evidence to inform all aspects of the quality improvement project; a process mapping exercise; informal focus groups / interviews with staff; patient story-telling work with people who had experienced critical care and subsequent discharge to a general ward; and regular audits of the quality of both medical and nursing critical care discharge summaries. The following behaviour change interventions were adopted, taking into account evidence of effectiveness from published systematic reviews and considering the local context: regular audit and feedback of the quality of discharge summaries, feedback of patient experience, and championing and education delivered by local opinion leaders. The audit results were mixed across the trajectory of the project, demonstrating the difficulty of sustaining positive change. This was particularly important as critical care bed occupancy and through-put fluctuates which then impacts on work-load, with new cohorts of staff regularly passing through critical care. In addition to presenting the results of this quality improvement project, we also reflect on the lessons learned and make suggestions for future projects.

Project description:BackgroundThe provision of palliative care is increasing, with many people dying in community-based settings. It is essential that communication is effective if and when patients transition from hospice to community palliative care. Past research has indicated that communication issues are prevalent during hospital discharges, but little is known about hospice discharges.MethodsAn explanatory sequential mixed methods study consisting of a retrospective review of hospice discharge letters, followed by hospice focus groups, to explore patterns in communication of palliative care needs of discharged patients and describe why these patients were being discharged. Discharge letters were extracted for key content information using a standardised form. Letters were then examined for language patterns using a linguistic methodology termed corpus linguistics. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the focus group transcripts. Findings were triangulated to develop an explanatory understanding of discharge communication from hospice care.ResultsWe sampled 250 discharge letters from five UK hospices whereby patients had been discharged to primary care. Twenty-five staff took part in focus groups. The main reasons for discharge extracted from the letters were symptoms "managed/resolved" (75.2%), and/or the "patient wishes to die/for care at home" (37.2%). Most patients had some form of physical needs documented on the letters (98.4%) but spiritual needs were rarely documented (2.4%). Psychological/emotional needs and social needs were documented in 46.4 and 35.6% of letters respectively. There was sometimes ambiguity in "who" will be following up "what" in the discharge letters, and whether described patients' needs were resolved or ongoing for managing in the community setting. The extent to which patients received a copy of their discharge letter varied. Focus groups conveyed a lack of consensus on what constitutes "complexity" and "complex pain".ConclusionsThe content and structure of discharge letters varied between hospices, although generally focused on physical needs. Our study provides insights into patterns associated with those discharged from hospice, and how policy and guidance in this area may be improved, such as greater consistency of sharing letters with patients. A patient-centred set of hospice-specific discharge letter principles could help improve future practice.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology is increasingly transforming the way we interact with others and undertake activities in our daily lives. The healthcare setting has, however, not yet realised the potential of technology solutions to facilitate communication between patients and healthcare providers. While the procedural and policy requirements of healthcare systems will ultimately drive such solutions, understanding the preferences and attitudes of patients is essential to ensure that technology implemented in the healthcare setting facilitates communication in safe, acceptable, and appropriate ways. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences for using technology to communicate with health service providers about symptoms experienced following discharge from the hospital.MethodsPrimary data were collected from patients admitted to a large metropolitan hospital in Australia during three consecutive months in 2018. Participants were asked about their daily use of technology including use of computers, email, phone, text messaging, mobile applications, social media, online discussion forums, and videoconference. They were then asked about their use of technologies in managing their health, and preferences for use when communicating about symptoms with health service providers following discharge from hospital.ResultsFive hundred and twenty-five patients with a wide range of differing clinical conditions and demographics participated. Patients indicated they used a range of technologies in their everyday lives and to manage their health. Almost 60% of patients would prefer to return to hospital if they were experiencing symptoms of concern. However, if patients experienced symptoms that were not of concern, over 60% would prefer to communicate with the hospital via telephone or using technology. Admitting condition, income, and age were significantly associated with preferences for communication about symptoms following hospital discharge.ConclusionsPatients have varied preferences for communicating with their health service providers post-hospital discharge. Findings suggest that some, but not all patients, would prefer to use technology to traditional methods of communicating with the healthcare team. Health services should offer patients multiple options for communicating about their recovery to ensure individual needs are appropriately met.