BACKGROUND: Patient care transitions are periods of enhanced risk. Discharge summaries have been used to communicate essential information between hospital-based physicians and primary care physicians (PCPs), and may reduce rates of adverse events after discharge. OBJECTIVE: To assess PCP satisfaction with an electronic discharge summary (EDS) program as compared to conventional dictated discharge summaries. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four medical teams of an academic general medical service. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was overall discharge summary quality, as assessed by PCPs using a 100-point visual analogue scale. Other endpoints included housestaff satisfaction (using a 100-point scale), adverse outcomes after discharge (combined endpoint of emergency department visits, readmission, and death), and patient understanding of discharge details as measured by the Care Transition Model (CTM-3) score (ranging from 0 to 100). RESULTS:209 patient discharges were included over a 2-month period encompassing 1 housestaff rotation. Surveys were sent out for 188 of these patient discharges, and 119 were returned (63% response rate). No difference in PCP-reported overall quality was observed between the 2 methods (86.4 for EDS vs. 84.3 for dictation; P = 0.53). Housestaff found the EDS significantly easier to use than conventional dictation (86.5 for EDS vs. 49.2 for dictation; P = 0.03), but there was no difference in overall housestaff satisfaction. There was no difference between discharge methods for the combined endpoint for adverse outcomes (22 for EDS [21%] vs. 21 for dictation [20%]; P = 0.89), or for patient understanding of discharge details (CTM-3 score 80.3 for EDS vs. 81.3 for dictation; P = 0.81) CONCLUSION: An EDS program can be used by housestaff to more easily create hospital discharge summaries, and there was no difference in PCP satisfaction.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patient care transitions are periods of enhanced risk. Discharge summaries have been used to communicate essential information between hospital-based physicians and primary care physicians (PCPs), and may reduce rates of adverse events after discharge. OBJECTIVE: To assess PCP satisfaction with an electronic discharge summary (EDS) program as compared to conventional dictated discharge summaries. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Four medical teams of an academic general medical service. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was overall discharge summary quality, as assessed by PCPs using a 100-point visual analogue scale. Other endpoints included housestaff satisfaction (using a 100-point scale), adverse outcomes after discharge (combined endpoint of emergency department visits, readmission, and death), and patient understanding of discharge details as measured by the Care Transition Model (CTM-3) score (ranging from 0 to 100). RESULTS: 209 patient discharges were included over a 2-month period encompassing 1 housestaff rotation. Surveys were sent out for 188 of these patient discharges, and 119 were returned (63% response rate). No difference in PCP-reported overall quality was observed between the 2 methods (86.4 for EDS vs. 84.3 for dictation; P = 0.53). Housestaff found the EDS significantly easier to use than conventional dictation (86.5 for EDS vs. 49.2 for dictation; P = 0.03), but there was no difference in overall housestaff satisfaction. There was no difference between discharge methods for the combined endpoint for adverse outcomes (22 for EDS [21%] vs. 21 for dictation [20%]; P = 0.89), or for patient understanding of discharge details (CTM-3 score 80.3 for EDS vs. 81.3 for dictation; P = 0.81) CONCLUSION: An EDS program can be used by housestaff to more easily create hospital discharge summaries, and there was no difference in PCP satisfaction.
Authors: Kevin J O'Leary; David M Liebovitz; Joseph Feinglass; David T Liss; Daniel B Evans; Nita Kulkarni; Matthew P Landler; David W Baker Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Natalie Wiebe; Lucia Otero Varela; Daniel J Niven; Paul E Ronksley; Nicolas Iragorri; Hude Quan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: JoAnna K Leyenaar; Lora Bergert; Leah A Mallory; Richard Engel; Caroline Rassbach; Mark Shen; Tess Woehrlen; David Cooperberg; Daniel Coghlin Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Chaim M Bell; Stacey S Brener; Rebecca Comrie; Geoffrey M Anderson; Susan E Bronskill Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Leora I Horwitz; Grace Y Jenq; Ursula C Brewster; Christine Chen; Sandhya Kanade; Peter H Van Ness; Katy L B Araujo; Boback Ziaeian; John P Moriarty; Robert L Fogerty; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-03-22 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Aaron L Leppin; Michael R Gionfriddo; Maya Kessler; Juan Pablo Brito; Frances S Mair; Katie Gallacher; Zhen Wang; Patricia J Erwin; Tanya Sylvester; Kasey Boehmer; Henry H Ting; M Hassan Murad; Nathan D Shippee; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 21.873