A novel curriculum to train physician assistant students how to write effective discharge summaries

Optimizing Discharge Summaries: A Multispecialty, Multicenter Survey of Primary Care Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Patient care in the United States has become increasingly more fragmented, and the discharge summary serves as a critical tool for transmitting information on a patient's hospital admission to the primary care clinician. Some guidelines regarding how to write discharge summaries exist, but few are focused on prioritizing content that is most important to optimize a patient's transition of care.

METHODS

We conducted a national survey across various medical primary care specialties, including trainees and advanced practice providers, to understand the priorities of primary care clinicians. We distributed the survey to 2184 clinicians affiliated with 8 large academic institutions. Our response rate was 21%.

RESULTS

Hospital course, discharge diagnoses, medication reconciliation, and follow-up sections were ranked as the most important categories with a 95.5% concordance rate among surveyed institutions. The least important sections were contact numbers for inpatient clinicians, ancillary services, weight-bearing status, and wound care. Similar themes were also identified via consensus review of the free-texted comments, adding that discharge summary style was also important. Other identified barriers to high-quality transition of care are both the limited time primary care clinicians can spend reviewing discharge summaries and lack of adequate communication between hospitalists and the outpatient clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

High-yield content should be presented at the beginning of the discharge summary and conveyed in a brief, succinct manner to ensure maximal utility of the document as a transition of care tool.

Structure, content, unsafe abbreviations, and completeness of discharge summaries: A retrospective analysis in a University Hospital in Austria

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

The discharge summary (DS) is one of the most important instruments to transmit information to the treating general physician (GP). The objective of this study was to analyse important components of DS, structural characteristics as well as medical and general abbreviations.

METHOD

One hundred randomly selected DS from five different clinics were evaluated by five independent reviewers regarding content, structure, abbreviations and conformity to the Austrian Electronic Health Records (ELGA) using a structured case report form. Abbreviations of all 100 DS were extracted. All items were scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" (or "not relevant"). Subsequently, the results were discussed among reviewers to achieve a consensus decision.

RESULTS

The mandatory fields, reason for admission and diagnosis at discharge were present in 80% and 98% of DS. The last medication was fully scored in 48% and the recommended medication in 94% of 100 DS. There were significant overall differences among clinics for nine mandatory items. In total, 750 unexplained abbreviations were found in 100 DS.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, DS are often lacking important items. Particularly important are a detailed medication history and recommendations for further medication that should always be listed in each DS. It is thus necessary to design and implement changes that improve the completeness of DS. An important quality improvement can be achieved by avoiding the use of ambiguous abbreviations.