|
1
|
- G. Stephen Nace, M.D.
- Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine
- University of Illinois College of Medicine - Peoria
|
|
2
|
- “Communication is central to practicing medicine. Articles have
documented examples of poor communication among physicians, and...
reports have associated poor communication with serious adverse
outcomes. Communication among health professionals has been labeled 'a
mess.'”1
|
|
3
|
- 19-23% of patients experience
adverse events within 4 weeks after acute care hospitalization
- Ineffective communication
contributed to many of the preventable adverse events
- Discharge communication should
include specific information about:
- The new discharge medication regimen
- What follow-up physicians need to do
- When they need to do it
- What they should watch for
- And more effort must be made to effectively communicate this
information to the patient
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
- arrive, on average, 2-4 weeks
after hospital discharge
- 66-92% of patients visit their
outpatient physicians before complete discharge information is available
- Between 16 and 53% of patients
contact their outpatient physician before arrival of any discharge
information
- For 51% of patients, the
discharge summary is never sent to the follow-up physician
- When discharge communication is delayed
or insufficiently detailed, post-discharge management is adversely
affected for 10-14% of patients
|
|
6
|
- 13% omitted a main diagnosis or
condition
- Only 28% had clear F/U plans
- 60% were received within 5 days
- A full discharge summary was
received within 4 weeks in only 51%
- Only 12% stated whether further
test results were pending
- 41% specified who to contact if
further information was needed...
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
- Use an evidence-based approach to redesign our current process to
facilitate information transfer between providers at the time of
hospital discharge
|
|
13
|
- immediate utility,
- minimal development and deployment costs,
- acceptable to users and readily modifiable based on user feedback,
- support quality and educational assessment audits, and
- might assist in the identification of additional functions and features
desirable in this and other discharge software applications.
|
|
14
|
- Creation of legible documents including:
- Prescriptions for medications, diet, activity, and self-care behaviors
- Instructions for patients about followup diagnostic tests and
appointments, including dates and addresses
- Correspondence to outpatient physicians which would contain all
pertinent information necessary for follow-up care
- Use of prompts and error checks to improve the completeness and quality
of the documents
|
|
15
|
- Emphasize speed of data entry and ease of use by:
- Minimizing text entry by making extensive use of drop-down menus, option
boxes and check boxes
- Designing logically presented screens which conformed as much as
possible to currently used forms and workflow patterns
- Designing search algorithms which would allow flexible yet efficient
lookups.
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
28
|
- The new process results in information transfer which is:
- More legible,
- More timely, and
- More complete
- Referring physicians like the new process
- Output is helpful to have with early re-admissions
- Discharging residents are mixed in their reviews
- Major complaint is that it takes too much time...
- ...but they like it when they are on the receiving end
|
|
29
|
- Alternate reference databases (e.g., SNOMED, NDC)
- Alternate distribution mechanism (fax server +/- email)
- Incentives for use (e.g., substitute for a dictated summary)
- Web-based platform
- Integration with EHR
- Incorporation within EHR
|
|
30
|
- James F. Graumlich, M.D., Nancy Novotny, R.N., M.S.N., and Jean Aldag,
Ph.D
- OSF-Saint Francis Medical Center
- This project was supported by grant number 5 R01 HS015084 from the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
|