A survey of patient views on receiving vascular outpatient letters

Discharge communication study: a realist evaluation of discharge communication experiences of patients, general practitioners and hospital practitioners, alongside a corresponding discharge letter sample

OBJECTIVES

To develop a programme theory for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters.

DESIGN

We used a realist evaluation approach and captured multiple perspectives of hospital discharge to refine our previously developed programme theory. General practitioner (GP), patient and hospital clinician views of a single discharge event in which they were all involved were collected using semi-structured interviews and surveys. These were then triangulated to match the corresponding discharge letter. Data were qualitatively synthesised and compared in meta-matrices before interrogation with realist logic of analysis to develop the programme theory that maps out how patients receiving discharge letters works in specific contexts.

SETTING

14 GP practices and four hospital trusts in West Midlands, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

10 complete matched cases (GP, patient and hospital practitioner), and a further 26 cases in which a letter was matched with two out of the three participants.

RESULTS

We identified seven context mechanism outcome configurations not found through literature searching. These related to the broad concepts of: patient preference for receiving letters, patient comprehension of letters, patient-directed letters, patient harm and clinician views on patients receiving letters. 'Patient choice' was important to the success (or not) of the intervention. Other important contexts for positive effects included: letters written in plain English, lay explanations for jargon, verbal information also provided, no new information in letter and patient choice acknowledged. Three key findings were: patient understanding is perhaps greater than clinicians perceive, clinician attitudes are a barrier to patients receiving letters and that, negative outcomes more commonly manifested when patients had not received letters, rather than when they had.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest how patients receiving discharge letters could be improved to enhance patient outcomes. Our programme theory has potential for use in different healthcare contexts and as a framework for policy development relating to patient discharge.

The Readability of Outpatient Plastic Surgery Clinic Letters: Are We Adhering to Plain English Writing Standards?

The readability of letters sent to patients plays a pivotal role in facilitating joint decision making and positive health outcomes. Guidance suggests that all correspondence should be directed to patients. Covid-19 led to an increase in direct-to-patient communication. This study aims to determine the quantity and quality of plastic surgery clinic letters sent to patients before and during the Covid-19 pandemic. A total of 127 pre-Covid clinic letters from November to December 2019 and 103 peri-Covid clinic letters from April to May 2020 were identified and assessed for readability. Text was analyzed using a standardized set of commonly used readability formulae, including SMOG, Flesch Reading Ease, and the Coleman-Liao Index. A total of 100 pre-Covid and 58 peri-Covid letters were suitable for inclusion. Median results for formulae that output a U.S. grade score ranged between 9 and 12.9 for letters written prior to Covid-19 and 9 and 13.2 for those written during Covid-19. Eight percent of letters were sent to patients pre-Covid, increasing to 28% during the pandemic. Letters sent to patients had a median grade score of between 8 and 12 prior to Covid-19 and 8 and 10.6 during Covid-19. Letters sent to clinicians ranged between 9 and 13 and 9 and 13.3, respectively. Outpatient plastic surgery letters are written at a readability level too high to facilitate understanding among the general population. The increase in direct-to-patient contact during the Covid-19 outbreak has not led to a significant improvement in the readability of clinic letters. The authors suggest an increase in letter standardization and raising awareness of readability when writing clinic letters.

GP perspectives on hospital discharge letters: an interview and focus group study

BACKGROUND

Written discharge communication following inpatient or outpatient clinic discharge is essential for communicating information to the GP, but GPs' opinions on discharge communication are seldom sought. Patients are sometimes copied into this communication, but the reasons for this variation, and the resultant effects, remain unclear.

AIM

To explore GP perspectives on how discharge letters can be improved in order to enhance patient outcomes.

DESIGN & SETTING

The study used narrative interviews with 26 GPs from 13 GP practices within the West Midlands, England.

METHOD

Interviews were transcribed and data were analysed using corpus linguistics (CL) techniques.

RESULTS

Elements pivotal to a successful letter were: diagnosis, appropriate follow-up plan, medication changes and reasons, clinical summary, investigations and/or procedures and outcomes, and what information has been given to the patient. GPs supported patients receiving discharge letters and expounded a number of benefits of this practice; for example, increased patient autonomy. Nevertheless, GPs felt that if patients are to receive direct discharge letter copies, modifications such as use of lay language and avoidance of acronyms may be required to increase patient understanding.

CONCLUSION

GPs reported that discharge letters frequently lacked content items they assessed to be important; GPs highlighted that this can have subsequent ramifications on resources and patient experiences. Templates should be devised that put discharge letter elements assessed to be important by GPs to the forefront. Future research needs to consider other perspectives on letter content, particularly those of patients.

Adult patient perspectives on receiving hospital discharge letters: a corpus analysis of patient interviews

BACKGROUND

UK government guidelines and initiatives emphasise equity in delivery of care, shared decision-making, and patient-centred care. This includes sharing information with patients as partners in health decisions and empowering them to manage their health effectively. In the UK, general practitioners (GPs) routinely receive hospital discharge letters; while patients receiving copies of such letters is seen as "good practice" and recommended, it is not standardised. The effects and consequences of whether or not this happens remains unclear. The aim of this study (one of three forming the Discharge Communication Study) was to explore patient perspectives on receiving discharge letters and their views on how this could be improved in order to optimise patient experience and outcomes.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of 50 patients recruited from 17 GP surgeries within the West Midlands, UK. All participants were adults with a recent episode of general hospital inpatient or outpatient care. Data were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using mixed methods corpus linguistics techniques.

RESULTS

Participants reported inconsistent access to discharge letters. Most wanted to receive a copy of their discharge letter although some expressed reservations. Perceived benefits included: increased understanding of their condition and treatment, reduced anxiety, and increased satisfaction. Consequences where participants had not received letters included: letter inaccuracies being overlooked, missed follow up actions, failure to fully remember diagnosis, treatment, or self-management or recommendations, and confusion and anxiety at what occurred and what will happen next. Participants felt the usefulness of receiving copies of letters could be increased by: including a patient information section, avoidance of acronyms, and jargon or technical terms explained with lay language.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients value receiving copies of hospital discharge letters, and should be consistently offered them. Patients' preferences for letter receipt could be logged in their health records. To enable positive outcomes letters should have a clear and accessible format that reflects the priorities and information needs of patients. Patients appear not to be receiving or being offered copies of letters consistently despite UK policies and guidelines supporting this practice; this suggests a need for greater standardisation of practice.

Improving best practice for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review

OBJECTIVE

To understand how different outcomes are achieved from adult patients receiving hospital discharge letters from inpatient and outpatient settings.

DESIGN

Realist review conducted in six main steps: (1) development of initial theory, (2) searching, (3) screening and selection, (4) data extraction and analysis, (5) data synthesis and (6) programme theory (PT) refinement.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Documents reporting evidence that met criteria for relevance to the PT. Documents relating solely to mental health or children aged <18 years were excluded.

ANALYSIS

Data were extracted and analysed using a realist logic of analysis. Texts were coded for concepts relating to context, mechanism, outcome configurations (CMOCs) for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters. All outcomes were considered. Based on evidence and our judgement, CMOCs were labelled 'positive' or 'negative' in order to clearly distinguish between contexts where the intervention does and does not work.

RESULTS

3113 documents were screened and 103 were included. Stakeholders contributed to refining the PT in step 6. The final PT included 48 CMOCs for how outcomes are affected by patients receiving discharge letters. 'Patient choice' emerged as a key influencer to the success (or not) of the intervention. Important contexts were identified for both 'positive' CMOCs (eg, no new information in letter) and 'negative' CMOCs (eg, letter sent without verifying patient contact details). Two key findings were that patient understanding is possibly greater than clinicians perceive, and that patients tend to express strong preference for receiving letters. Clinician concerns emerged as a barrier to wider sharing of discharge letters with patients, which may need to be addressed through organisational policies and direction.

CONCLUSIONS

This review forms a starting point for explaining outcomes associated with whether or not patients receive discharge letters. It suggests several ways in which current processes might be modified to support improved practice and patient experience.

Should patients still be copied into their letters? A rapid review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically identify, synthesise and evaluate the strength of the international evidence on copy letter practice.

METHODS

A systematic search identified original research studies on copy letters. Searches were limited by date and language as permitted in rapid review methods guidance. Article screening, data extraction and strength of evidence assessment were completed independently by multiple authors.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included. There was a lack of information about copy letter content. Many patients report being satisfied with copy letters, understand them and find them useful. However, there is a lack of objective, high quality evidence to suggest that copy letters increased patient understanding or improved physical or psychological health outcomes. Many letters were written at a level which would make them inaccessible to patients with low health literacy. The strength of evidence was either "emerging" or "acceptable" practice for most studies (n = 30).

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of objective, high quality evidence to demonstrate the benefits of copy letters as described in health policy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Personalising letters and using lay rather than medical terms appears to be useful for improving copy letter readability. Further research is required to explore this, especially in people with low health literacy levels.

Impact of providing patients with copies of their medical correspondence: a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

In Australia, correspondence is routinely sent to general practitioners following a specialist consultation. Written communication is an important way to enhance patient experiences and understanding, yet most patients do not receive copies of their medical correspondence.

AIMS

To determine whether providing clinic correspondence and endoscopy reports to patients leads to improved understanding, satisfaction or anxiety.

METHODS

This is a prospective, randomised controlled study conducted at an Australian tertiary hospital from October 2013 to February 2015. New adult referrals to the general gastroenterology clinic requiring an urgent endoscopic procedure were eligible for the study. The intervention group received a copy of their clinic correspondence and endoscopy report, while the control group received neither. Participants completed questionnaires, including visual analogue scales and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, at three time points. Primary outcomes were patient understanding, anxiety and satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 70 participants was included in the study. There was no reduction in anxiety levels (P = 0.52), no increase in understanding (P = 0.73) or any increase in satisfaction (P = 0.33) in participants receiving correspondence. However, 97% of participants indicated that they wished to receive correspondence in the future, and 94% of participants in the correspondence group reported that receiving correspondence had helped them to understand their medical condition.

CONCLUSION

Patients wish to receive copies of their correspondence and feel it improves their understanding of their medical condition. Although we were unable to demonstrate a measurable reduction in anxiety, increase in understanding or satisfaction, we recommend that patients be offered the choice of receiving copies of their clinic correspondence and endoscopy reports.

The Impact of Infective Endocarditis Prophylaxis Recommendations on the Practices of Pediatric and Adult Congenital Cardiologists

BACKGROUND

Compliance with the April 2007 American Heart Association (AHA) infective endocarditis (IE) guidelines is not well described. We sought to evaluate the impact of these guidelines on the clinical practices of pediatric and adult congenital cardiologists.

METHODS

We conducted a 2-centre retrospective cohort study, including patients who had at least 1 outpatient cardiology visit after April 1, 2008 and had 1 of 11 prespecified high- or low-risk congenital cardiac lesions. High-risk lesions required prophylaxis per the AHA guidelines; low-risk patients no longer required prophylaxis. Cardiology clinic letters were reviewed to determine if antibiotic prophylaxis and oral hygiene were addressed and whether prophylaxis was recommended. Comparisons were made before April 2007 vs at least 1 year after guideline publication.

RESULTS

We included 238 high-risk and 201 low-risk patients. IE prophylaxis was recommended for all study patients before April 2007. After April 2008, IE prophylaxis recommendations were reduced by 44.9% for low-risk patients (P < 0.0001) and 9.3% for high-risk patients (P = 0.0156). IE prophylaxis recommendations were documented in the medical record of 92% of patients (95% confidence interval, 88%-95%) before April 2007 vs 81% (77%-84%) after April 2008. Oral hygiene was emphasized for only 44% and 28% of patients before and after guideline revision (P = 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2007 AHA guidelines resulted in significantly fewer recommendations for IE prophylaxis in low-risk patients. However, cardiologists continue to recommend prophylaxis for some low-risk patients and advise some high-risk patients against prophylaxis. These findings suggest disagreement or uncertainty within the cardiology community regarding current IE guidelines.

Patient Satisfaction: Receiving a copy of the GP letter following fracture or elective orthopaedic clinic

Following orthopaedic/fracture clinics at our hospital, patients now receive a copy of the letter summarizing an outpatient consultation that is sent to their General Practitioner. We undertook a patient satisfaction questionnaire to determine if patients found this change in practice beneficial.

Of the 83 patients who had received this letter, most patients had read the letter (96%) and understood the content (90%). 13% were worried after having read the content and 86% found it helpful. Of the 40 patients who did not receive a copy, 32 (80%) specified that they would wish to in the future. The results support the new practice although it could be improved by identifying those who do not wish to be included thereby reducing costs.