Daryl R Cheng1,2, Merav L Katz1, Mike South1,2. 1. EMR Project Team, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. 2. Department of General Medicine, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Succinct and timely discharge summaries (DSs) facilitate ongoing care for patients discharged from acute care settings. Many institutions have introduced electronic DS (eDS) templates to improve quality and timeliness of clinical correspondence. However, significant intrahospital and intraunit variability and application exists. A review of the literature and guidelines revealed 13 key elements that should be included in a best practice DS. This was compared against our pediatric institution's eDS template-housed within an integrated electronic medical record (EMR) and used across most inpatient hospital units. METHODS: Uptake and adherence to the suggested key elements was measured by comparing all DSs for long stay inpatients (> 21-day admission) during the first year of the EMR eDS template's usage (May 2016-April 2017). RESULTS: A total of 472 DSs were evaluated. Six of 13 key elements were completed in > 98.0% of DSs. Conversely, only < 5.0% included allergies or adverse reaction data, and < 11.0% included ceased medications or pending laboratory results. Inclusion of procedure information and pending laboratory results significantly improved with time (p = 0.05 and p < 0.04, respectively), likely as doctors became more familiar with EMR and autopopulation functions. Inclusion of "discharge diagnosis" differed significantly between medical (n = 406/472; 99.0%) and surgical (n = 32/472; 51.6%) DSs. CONCLUSION: Uptake and adherence to an EMR eDS template designed to meet best practice guidelines in a pediatric institution was strong, although significant improvements in specific data elements are needed. Strategies can include a modification of existing eDS templates and junior medical staff education around best practice. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVE: Succinct and timely discharge summaries (DSs) facilitate ongoing care for patients discharged from acute care settings. Many institutions have introduced electronic DS (eDS) templates to improve quality and timeliness of clinical correspondence. However, significant intrahospital and intraunit variability and application exists. A review of the literature and guidelines revealed 13 key elements that should be included in a best practice DS. This was compared against our pediatric institution's eDS template-housed within an integrated electronic medical record (EMR) and used across most inpatient hospital units. METHODS: Uptake and adherence to the suggested key elements was measured by comparing all DSs for long stay inpatients (> 21-day admission) during the first year of the EMR eDS template's usage (May 2016-April 2017). RESULTS: A total of 472 DSs were evaluated. Six of 13 key elements were completed in > 98.0% of DSs. Conversely, only < 5.0% included allergies or adverse reaction data, and < 11.0% included ceased medications or pending laboratory results. Inclusion of procedure information and pending laboratory results significantly improved with time (p = 0.05 and p < 0.04, respectively), likely as doctors became more familiar with EMR and autopopulation functions. Inclusion of "discharge diagnosis" differed significantly between medical (n = 406/472; 99.0%) and surgical (n = 32/472; 51.6%) DSs. CONCLUSION: Uptake and adherence to an EMR eDS template designed to meet best practice guidelines in a pediatric institution was strong, although significant improvements in specific data elements are needed. Strategies can include a modification of existing eDS templates and junior medical staff education around best practice. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Paul Feigenbaum; Estee Neuwirth; Linda Trowbridge; Serge Teplitsky; Carol Ann Barnes; Emily Fireman; Jann Dorman; Jim Bellows Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Thomas Schabetsberger; Elske Ammenwerth; Stefan Andreatta; Gordon Gratl; Reinhold Haux; Georg Lechleitner; Klaus Schindelwig; Christian Stark; Raimund Vogl; Immanuel Wilhelmy; Florian Wozak Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 4.046
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: Christina L Cifra; Cody R Tigges; Sarah L Miller; Nathaniel Curl; Christopher D Monson; Kimberly C Dukes; Heather S Reisinger; Priyadarshini R Pennathur; Dean F Sittig; Hardeep Singh Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 2.762