Dataset Information

Adult patient perspectives on receiving hospital discharge letters: a corpus analysis of patient interviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

UK 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.

Methods

Semi-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.

Results

Participants 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.

Conclusions

Most 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.

SUBMITTER: Weetman K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7294646 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adult patient perspectives on receiving hospital discharge letters: a corpus analysis of patient interviews.

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

BMC health services research 20200615 1

<h4>Background</h4>UK 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 ...[more]

PMID: 32539716

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:IntroductionDischarge 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 analysisThe 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 disseminationFormal 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 numberCRD42017069863.

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: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:OBJECTIVES:Previous studies on patient-centred care (PCC) and its facilitators and barriers usually considered specific patient groups, healthcare settings and aspects of PCC or focused on expert perspectives. The objective of this study was to analyse patients' perspectives of facilitators and barriers towards implementing PCC. DESIGN:We conducted semistructured individual interviews with chronically ill patients. The interviewees were encouraged to share positive and negative experiences of care and the related facilitators and barriers in all settings including preventive, acute and chronic health issues. Interview data were analysed based on the concept of content analysis. SETTING:Interviews took place at the University Hospital Cologne, nursing homes, at participants' homes or by telephone. PARTICIPANTS:Any person with at least one chronic illness living in the region of Cologne was eligible for participation. 25 persons with an average age of 60 years participated in the interviews. The participants suffered from various chronic conditions including mental health problems, oncological, metabolic, neurological diseases, but also shared experiences related to acute health issues. RESULTS:Participants described facilitators and barriers of PCC on the microlevel (eg, patient-provider interaction), mesolevel (eg, health and social care organisation, HSCO) and macrolevel (eg, laws, financing). In addition to previous concepts, interviewees illustrated the importance of being an active patient by taking individual responsibility for health. Interviewees considered functioning teams and healthy staff members a facilitator of PCC as this can compensate stressful situations or lack of staff to some degree. A lack of transparency in financing and reimbursement was identified as barrier to PCC. CONCLUSION:Individual providers and HSCOs can address many facilitators and barriers of PCC as perceived by patients. Large-scale changes such as reduction of administrative barriers, the expansion of care networks or higher mandatory nurse to patient ratios require political action and incentives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:DRKS00011925.

Dataset Information

Adult patient perspectives on receiving hospital discharge letters: a corpus analysis of patient interviews.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Adult patient perspectives on receiving hospital discharge letters: a corpus analysis of patient interviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets