Amber E Hoek1, Susanne C P Anker2, Ed F van Beeck3, Alex Burdorf3, Pleunie P M Rood2, Juanita A Haagsma4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.e.hoek@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to provide an overview of the different manners of providing discharge instructions in the emergency department (ED) and to assess their effects on comprehension and recall of the 4 domains of discharge instructions: diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and return instructions. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for studies published before March 15, 2018. A quality assessment of included articles was performed. Pooled proportions of correct recall by manner of providing discharge instructions were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,842 articles were screened, and after selection, 51 articles were included. Of the 51 included studies, 12 used verbal discharge instructions only, 30 used written discharge instructions, and 7 used video. Correct recall of verbal, written, and video discharge instructions ranged from 8% to 94%, 23% to 92%, and 54% to 89%, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed on data of 1,460 patients who received verbal information only, 3,395 patients who received written information, and 459 patients who received video information. Pooled data showed differences in correct recall, with, on average, 47% for patients who received verbal information (95% confidence interval 32.2% to 61.7%), 58% for patients who received written information (95% confidence interval 44.2% to 71.2%), and 67% for patients who received video information (95% confidence interval 57.9% to 75.7%). CONCLUSION: Communicating discharge instructions verbally to patients in the ED may not be sufficient. Although overall correct recall was not significantly higher, adding video or written information to discharge instructions showed promising results for ED patients.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to provide an overview of the different manners of providing discharge instructions in the emergency department (ED) and to assess their effects on comprehension and recall of the 4 domains of discharge instructions: diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and return instructions. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for studies published before March 15, 2018. A quality assessment of included articles was performed. Pooled proportions of correct recall by manner of providing discharge instructions were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,842 articles were screened, and after selection, 51 articles were included. Of the 51 included studies, 12 used verbal discharge instructions only, 30 used written discharge instructions, and 7 used video. Correct recall of verbal, written, and video discharge instructions ranged from 8% to 94%, 23% to 92%, and 54% to 89%, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed on data of 1,460 patients who received verbal information only, 3,395 patients who received written information, and 459 patients who received video information. Pooled data showed differences in correct recall, with, on average, 47% for patients who received verbal information (95% confidence interval 32.2% to 61.7%), 58% for patients who received written information (95% confidence interval 44.2% to 71.2%), and 67% for patients who received video information (95% confidence interval 57.9% to 75.7%). CONCLUSION: Communicating discharge instructions verbally to patients in the ED may not be sufficient. Although overall correct recall was not significantly higher, adding video or written information to discharge instructions showed promising results for ED patients.
Authors: Allison Squires; Roy Thompson; Tina Sadarangani; Polina Amburg; Kathy Sliwinski; Cedonnie Curtis; Bei Wu Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Sophie Maria Coffeng; Bram Jacobs; Laura Jane Kim; Jan Cornelis Ter Maaten; Joukje van der Naalt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Christoph Becker; Samuel Zumbrunn; Katharina Beck; Alessia Vincent; Nina Loretz; Jonas Müller; Simon A Amacher; Rainer Schaefert; Sabina Hunziker Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Peter A D Steel; David Bodnar; Maryellen Bonito; Jane Torres-Lavoro; Dona Bou Eid; Andrew Jacobowitz; Amos Shemesh; Robert Tanouye; Patrick Rumble; Daniel DiCello; Rahul Sharma; Brenna Farmer; Sandra Pomerantz; Yiye Zhang Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Christina Østervang; Annmarie Touborg Lassen; Charlotte Myhre Jensen; Elisabeth Coyne; Karin Brochstedt Dieperink Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marjolein N T Kremers; Elsemieke E M Mols; Yvonne A E Simons; Sander M J van Kuijk; Frits Holleman; Prabath W B Nanayakkara; Harm R Haak Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240