Dataset Information

What makes a "successful" or "unsuccessful" discharge letter? Hospital clinician and General Practitioner assessments of the quality of discharge letters.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sharing 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.

Methods

Mixed 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.

Results

Fifty-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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Weetman K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8048210 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectivesTo develop a programme theory for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters.DesignWe used a realist evaluation approach and captured multiple perspectives of hospital discharge to refine our previously developed programme theory. General practitioner (GP), patient and hospital clinician views of a single discharge event in which they were all involved were collected using semi-structured interviews and surveys. These were then triangulated to match the corresponding discharge letter. Data were qualitatively synthesised and compared in meta-matrices before interrogation with realist logic of analysis to develop the programme theory that maps out how patients receiving discharge letters works in specific contexts.Setting14 GP practices and four hospital trusts in West Midlands, UK.Participants10 complete matched cases (GP, patient and hospital practitioner), and a further 26 cases in which a letter was matched with two out of the three participants.ResultsWe identified seven context mechanism outcome configurations not found through literature searching. These related to the broad concepts of: patient preference for receiving letters, patient comprehension of letters, patient-directed letters, patient harm and clinician views on patients receiving letters. 'Patient choice' was important to the success (or not) of the intervention. Other important contexts for positive effects included: letters written in plain English, lay explanations for jargon, verbal information also provided, no new information in letter and patient choice acknowledged. Three key findings were: patient understanding is perhaps greater than clinicians perceive, clinician attitudes are a barrier to patients receiving letters and that, negative outcomes more commonly manifested when patients had not received letters, rather than when they had.ConclusionsWe suggest how patients receiving discharge letters could be improved to enhance patient outcomes. Our programme theory has potential for use in different healthcare contexts and as a framework for policy development relating to patient discharge.

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.