Article

Effect of Standardized Electronic Discharge Instructions on Post-Discharge Hospital Utilization

Department of Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, 500 University Drive, Mail Code HS04, Hershey, PA 17033, USA.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 07/2011; 26(7):718-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-011-1712-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several physician organizations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) support compliance measures for written discharge instructions. CMS has identified clear discharge instructions with specific attention to medication management as a necessary intervention.
We tested the hypothesis that implementing a standardized electronic discharge instructions document with embedded computerized medication reconciliation would decrease post-discharge hospital utilization.
Retrospective pre- and post-implementation comparison cohort study.
Subjects were hospitalized patients age 18 and older discharged between November 1, 2005 and October 31, 2006 (n = 16,572) and between March 1, 2007 and February 28, 2008 (n = 17,516).
Implementation of a standardized, templated electronic discharge instructions document with embedded computerized medication reconciliation on December 18, 2006.
The primary outcome was a composite variable of readmission or Emergency Department (ED) visit within 30 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes were the individual variables of readmissions and ED visits within 30 days.
The implementation of standardized electronic discharge instructions with embedded computerized medication reconciliation was not associated with a change in the primary composite outcome (adjusted OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98-1.10) or the secondary outcome of 30-day ED visits (adjusted OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.98-1.10). There was an unexpected small but statistically significant increase in 30-day readmissions (adjusted OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16).
Implementation of standardized electronic discharge instructions was not associated with reduction in post-discharge hospital utilization. More studies are needed to determine the reasons for post-discharge hospital utilization and to examine outcomes associated with proposed process-related recommendations.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Cynthia Chuang, Jun 21, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
223 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Preventing 30-day readmissions to hospitals is a top priority in the era of health care reform. New regulations will be costly to health care facilities because of payment guidelines. The most frequently readmitted medical conditions are acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. The transition from the hospital and into the home has been classified as a vulnerable time for many patients. During this time of transition patients may fail to fully understand their discharge instructions. Ineffective communication, low health literacy, and compliance issues contribute to readmissions. Telehealth and the use of technology may be used to prevent some readmissions. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Nursing Clinics of North America 03/2015; 50(1):123-137. DOI:10.1016/j.cnur.2014.10.010 · 0.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Hospital readmission rates are increasingly used for both quality improvement and cost control. However, the validity of readmission rates as a measure of quality of hospital care is not evident. We aimed to give an overview of the different methodological aspects in the definition and measurement of readmission rates that need to be considered when interpreting readmission rates as a reflection of quality of care. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review, using the bibliographic databases Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web-of-Science, Cochrane central and PubMed for the period of January 2001 to May 2013. Results: The search resulted in 102 included papers. We found that definition of the context in which readmissions are used as a quality indicator is crucial. This context includes the patient group and the specific aspects of care of which the quality is aimed to be assessed. Methodological flaws like unreliable data and insufficient case-mix correction may confound the comparison of readmission rates between hospitals. Another problem occurs when the basic distinction between planned and unplanned readmissions cannot be made. Finally, the multi-faceted nature of quality of care and the correlation between readmissions and other outcomes limit the indicator's validity. Conclusions: Although readmission rates are a promising quality indicator, several methodological concerns identified in this study need to be addressed, especially when the indicator is intended for accountability or pay for performance. We recommend investing resources in accurate data registration, improved indicator description, and bundling outcome measures to provide a more complete picture of hospital care.
    PLoS ONE 11/2014; 9(11):e112282. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0112282 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improving hospital discharge has become a national priority for teaching hospitals, yet little is known about physician perspectives on factors limiting the quality of discharge care. To describe the discharge process from the perspective of housestaff physicians, and to generate hypotheses about quality-limiting factors and key strategies for improvement. Qualitative study with in-depth, in-person interviews with a diverse sample of 29 internal medicine housestaff, in 2010-2011, at 2 separate internal medicine training programs, including 7 different hospitals. We used the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis to explore the experiences and perceptions of factors affecting the quality of discharge care. We identified 5 unifying themes describing factors perceived to limit the quality of discharge care: (1) competing priorities in the discharge process; (2) inadequate coordination within multidisciplinary discharge teams; (3) lack of standardization in discharge procedures; (4) poor patient and family communication; and (5) lack of postdischarge feedback and clinical responsibility. Quality-limiting factors described by housestaff identified key processes for intervention. Establishment of clear standards for discharge procedures, including interdisciplinary teamwork, patient communication, and postdischarge continuity of care, may improve the quality of discharge care by housestaff at teaching hospitals.
    Journal of Hospital Medicine 05/2012; 7(5):376-81. DOI:10.1002/jhm.1928 · 2.08 Impact Factor