Article

Are general practitioners satisfied with electronic discharge summaries?

Balmain Hospital, Balmain NSW 2041.
The HIM journal (Impact Factor: 0.7). 02/2007; 36(1):7-12.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to assess general practitioners' (GPs') satisfaction with the quality of information in electronic discharge summaries and the timeliness of their receipt of the summaries. The study was conducted in a 75-bed Australian public metropolitan hospital which uses an electronic discharge summary which is mailed to the patients' nominated GP. Eighty-five GPs were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the content of the electronic discharge summary and the timeliness of receipt. the majority of respondents indicated that they had received the electronic discharge summary within two weeks of the patients' discharge from hospital. The majority also indicated that they were satisfied with all eight documentation data elements. Some GPs indicated that they would prefer to receive the electronic discharge summary electronically by email rather than by conventional mail, and that they would like more information in the "follow-up and recommendations" content areas of the summary. It was concluded that the majority of GPs agreed that the electronic discharge summary was an improvement over the manual discharge summary. Further developments in the safe and secure electronic transfer of discharge summary information needs to be addressed to meet the information needs of GPs.

Full-text

Available from: Joanne Callen, Mar 16, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
165 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After hospital discharge, patients are at risk for medication errors, missed test results, adverse events, and readmissions. Handoff communication between the inpatient and outpatient settings is primarily accomplished with the discharge summary. However, critical information can often be missing, such as the date of the first postdischarge follow-up visit, a complete and accurate list of discharge medications, and follow-up recommendations. There have been no studies focusing on identifying and implementing a parsimonious, clinically relevant, inpatient-to-outpatient discharge handoff tool within a fully integrated electronic medical record (EMR) system. A concise, written, electronic handoff communication tool was created to address this gap.
    Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety / Joint Commission Resources 05/2014; 40(5):219-27.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The present study aims to inform the use of discharge summaries as a marker of the quality of communication between ED and primary care; this systematic review aims to identify a consensus on the key components of a high-quality discharge summary.MethodA systematic search of the major medical and allied health databases and Google Scholar was conducted, using predetermined criteria for inclusion. Two authors independently reviewed the full texts of potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility for inclusion. Data were extracted using a standard form, and the level of evidence was assessed using a predetermined scale.ResultsWe screened 827 articles, and 84 articles underwent full-text review. Thirty-two studies were included, and 15 studies were level A or B studies. The agreement between authors for level of evidence was good: k = 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4–0.84) and for which components were included was 1011/1056, 95.7% (95% CI 94.3–96.8%). Thirty-four components were identified; however, only four were ranked as important by ≥80% of respondents or scored ≥80% on a scale of importance. These were: discharge diagnosis, treatment received, investigation results and follow-up plan. The quality of information contained in summaries was incompletely assessed in most studies.Conclusion The key components to include in a discharge summary are the discharge diagnosis, treatment received, results of investigations and the follow up required. The limited evidence pertaining to ED discharges was consistent with this. The adequacy of the components rather than just their presence or absence should also be considered when assessing the quality of discharge summaries.
    Emergency medicine Australasia: EMA 10/2014; 26(5). DOI:10.1111/1742-6723.12285 · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess physicians' perceptions on a newly developed electronic transfer of care (e-TOC) communication tool and identify barriers and opportunities toward its adoption. The study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching center as part of a randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an e-TOC communication tool. The e-TOC technology was developed through iterative consultation with stakeholders. This e-TOC summary was populated by acute care physicians (AcPs) and communicated electronically to community care physicians (CcPs). The AcPs consisted of attending physicians, resident trainees, and medical students rotating through the Medical Teaching Unit. The CcPs were health care providers caring for patients discharged from hospital to the community. AcPs and CcPs completed validated surveys assessing their experience with the newly developed e-TOC tool. Free text questions were added to gather general comments from both groups of physicians. Units of analysis were individual physicians. Data from the surveys were analyzed using mixed methods. AcPs completed 138 linked pre- and post-rotation surveys. At post-rotation, each AcP completed an average of six e-TOC summaries, taking an average of 37 minutes per e-TOC summary. Over 100 CcPs assessed the quality of the TOC summaries, with an overall rating of 8.3 (standard deviation: 1.48; on a scale of 1-10). Thematic analyses revealed barriers and opportunities encountered by physicians toward the adoption of the e-TOC tool. While the AcPs highlighted issues with timeliness, usability, and presentation, the CcPs identified barriers accessing the web-based TOC summaries, emphasizing that the summaries were timely and the quality of information supported continuity of care. Despite the barriers identified by both groups of physicians, the e-TOC communication tool was well received. Our experience can serve as a template for other health research teams considering the implementation of e-health technologies into health care systems.
    Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 01/2015; 8:21-31. DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S72953