Dataset Information

Discharge communication study: a realist evaluation of discharge communication experiences of patients, general practitioners and hospital practitioners, alongside a corresponding discharge letter sample.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop a programme theory for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters.

Design

We 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.

Setting

14 GP practices and four hospital trusts in West Midlands, UK.

Participants

10 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusions

We 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.

SUBMITTER: Weetman K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8296817 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDischarge letters are crucial during care transitions from hospital to home. Research indicates a need for improvement to increase quality of care and decrease adverse outcomes. These letters are often sent from the hospital discharging physician to the referring clinician, typically the patient's General Practitioner (GP) in the UK, and patients may or may not be copied into them. Relatively little is known about the barriers and enablers to sending patients discharge letters. Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate from GP, hospital professional (HP) and patient perspectives how to improve processes of patients receiving letters and increase quality of discharge letters. The study has a particular focus on the impacts of receiving or not receiving letters on patient experiences and quality of care.MethodsThe setting was a region in the West Midlands of England, UK. The research aimed to recruit a minimum of 30 GPs, 30 patients and 30 HPs in order to capture 90 experiences of discharge communication. Participating GPs initially screened and selected a range of recent discharge letters which they assessed to be successful and unsuccessful exemplars. These letters identified potential participants who were invited to take part: the HP letter writer, GP recipient and patient. Participant viewpoints are collected through interviews, focus groups and surveys and will be "matched" to the discharge letter sample, so forming multiple-perspective "quartet" cases. These "quartets" allow direct comparisons between different discharge experiences within the same communicative event. The methods for analysis draw on techniques from the fields of Applied Linguistics and Health Sciences, including: corpus linguistics; inferential statistics; content analysis.DiscussionThis mixed-methods study is novel in attempting to triangulate views of patients, GPs and HPs in relation to specific discharge letters. Patient and practitioner involvement will inform design decisions and interpretation of findings. Recommendations for improving discharge letters and the process of patients receiving letters will be made, with the intention of informing guidelines on discharge communication. Ethics approval was granted in July 2017 by the UK Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, reports and newsletters, and presentations.

Project description:ObjectivesWorldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100?million of funding (US$130?million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak.DesignRapid realist literature review.SettingEmergency departments.Inclusion criteriaArticles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments.AimTo develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system.ResultsNinety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes.ConclusionsMultiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research.Prospero registration numberCRD42017069741.

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:BACKGROUND:Continuous medical education strategies, including academic detailing (AD), have mixed effects on the quality of prescribing in general practice. Alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) to assess the effectiveness of AD visits (on appropriate prescribing of analgesics for chronic pain in osteoarthritis) by Farmaka, an independent drug information center, we performed a process evaluation to identify possible barriers and success factors to improve these AD visits, both from the perspective of the academic detailers delivering the visits and the general practitioners (GPs) receiving them. METHODS:We performed semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs who participated in the cRCT and 13 academic detailers. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:GPs viewed AD visits as a practical and useful CME strategy, that is less time consuming than other CME activities, and the visitors as providers of objective and independent information relevant to their daily practice with whom they can have meaningful discussion. Academic detailers saw themselves as content experts, mainly informing GPs about the topic and not emphasizing on behavior change. Both GPs and academic detailers believed that the AD visits could have better interaction and discussion if performed in small groups. According to the GPs, the visits on analgesic use provided some new and relevant information as well as clarifying some misconceptions. They increased awareness of the disadvantages of particular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and of the lower doses of paracetamol that should be prescribed for chronic use, which may have changed their beliefs and/or attitudes towards more appropriate prescribing for osteoarthritis. However, the transfer of knowledge into practice was seen as not so straightforward. CONCLUSIONS:GPs view AD visits as a credible and interesting way of CME that enhances their knowledge and increases reflection on their prescribing behavior.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the effect of general practitioners (GPs) working in or alongside the emergency department (GPED) on patient outcomes and experience, and the associated impacts of implementation on the workforce.DesignMixed-methods study: interviews with service leaders and NHS managers; in-depth case studies (n=10) and retrospective observational analysis of routinely collected national data. We used normalisation process theory to map our findings to the theory's four main constructs of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring.Setting and participantsData were collected from 64 EDs in England. Case site data included: non-participant observation of 142 clinical encounters; 467 semistructured interviews with policy-makers, service leaders, clinical staff, patients and carers. Retrospective observational analysis used routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics alongside information on GPED service hours from 40 hospitals for which complete data were available.ResultsThere was disagreement at individual, stakeholder and organisational levels regarding the purpose and potential impact of GPED (coherence). Participants criticised policy development and implementation, and staff engagement was hindered by tensions between ED and GP staff (cognitive participation). Patient 'streaming' processes, staffing and resource constraints influenced whether GPED became embedded in routine practice. Concerns that GPED may increase ED attendance influenced staff views. Our quantitative analysis showed no detectable impact on attendance (collective action). Stakeholders disagreed whether GPED was successful, due to variations in GPED model, site-specific patient mix and governance arrangements. Following statistical adjustment for multiple testing, we found no impact on: ED reattendances within 7 days, patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival, patients leaving the ED without being seen; inpatient admissions; non-urgent ED attendances and 30-day mortality (reflexive monitoring).ConclusionsWe found a high degree of variability between hospital sites, but no overall evidence that GPED increases the efficient operation of EDs or improves clinical outcomes, patient or staff experience.Trial registration numberISCRTN5178022.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.