Danger in discharge summaries: Abbreviations create confusion for both author and recipient

BACKGROUND

The transition from hospital inpatient care to medical care in the community is a high-risk period for adverse events. Inadequate communication, including low quality or unavailable discharge summaries, has been shown to impact patient care.

AIMS

Assess use of abbreviations in clinical handover documents from inpatient hospital teams to general practitioners (GPs), and the interpretation of these abbreviations by GPs and hospital-based junior doctors.

METHODS

Retrospective audit of 802 discharge summaries completed during a one-week period in 2017 by a Queensland regional health service. GPs and local junior doctors then attempted interpretation of twenty relevant abbreviations.

RESULTS

99% (794) discharge summaries included abbreviations. 1612 different abbreviations were used on 16 327 occasions. The median number of abbreviations per discharge summary was 17 (range 0-86). 254 GPs and 62 junior doctors responded to a survey which found that no abbreviation was interpreted the same by all respondents. GPs and junior doctors were unable to offer any interpretation in 17.9% and 15.2% of cases respectively. GPs offered a greater range of interpretations than junior doctors, with a median of 9 and 3 different interpretations per abbreviation respectively. 94% (239) of GPs felt that the use of abbreviations in discharge summaries had the potential to impact patient care. 152 (60%) GPs felt that time spent clarifying abbreviations in discharge summaries could be excessive.

CONCLUSIONS

Abbreviations are often used in discharge summaries, yet poorly understood. This has the potential to impact patient care in the transition period after hospitalisation This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.