Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 9, pp 995–1001 | Cite as

Electronic Versus Dictated Hospital Discharge Summaries: a Randomized Controlled Trial

  • David M. Maslove
  • Richard E. Leiter
  • Joshua Griesman
  • Corinne Arnott
  • Ophyr Mourad
  • Chi-Ming Chow
  • Chaim M. Bell
Original Article

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Patient care transitions are periods of enhanced risk. Discharge summaries have been used to communicate essential information between hospital-based physicians and primary care physicians (PCPs), and may reduce rates of adverse events after discharge.

OBJECTIVE

To assess PCP satisfaction with an electronic discharge summary (EDS) program as compared to conventional dictated discharge summaries.

DESIGN

Cluster randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Four medical teams of an academic general medical service.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was overall discharge summary quality, as assessed by PCPs using a 100-point visual analogue scale. Other endpoints included housestaff satisfaction (using a 100-point scale), adverse outcomes after discharge (combined endpoint of emergency department visits, readmission, and death), and patient understanding of discharge details as measured by the Care Transition Model (CTM-3) score (ranging from 0 to 100).

RESULTS

209 patient discharges were included over a 2-month period encompassing 1 housestaff rotation. Surveys were sent out for 188 of these patient discharges, and 119 were returned (63% response rate). No difference in PCP-reported overall quality was observed between the 2 methods (86.4 for EDS vs. 84.3 for dictation; P = 0.53). Housestaff found the EDS significantly easier to use than conventional dictation (86.5 for EDS vs. 49.2 for dictation; P = 0.03), but there was no difference in overall housestaff satisfaction. There was no difference between discharge methods for the combined endpoint for adverse outcomes (22 for EDS [21%] vs. 21 for dictation [20%]; P = 0.89), or for patient understanding of discharge details (CTM-3 score 80.3 for EDS vs. 81.3 for dictation; P = 0.81)

CONCLUSION

An EDS program can be used by housestaff to more easily create hospital discharge summaries, and there was no difference in PCP satisfaction.

KEY WORDS

care transitions medical informatics electronic health records randomized controlled trial hospital discharge 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Dr. Bell is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Canadian Patient Safety Institute chair in Patient Safety and Continuity of Care. This study was funded by the University Of Toronto Chair of Medicine Quality Partners Program, and by a summer student grant from Li Ka-Shing Knowledge Institute, and Keenan Research Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital. The funding agencies had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Our thanks to the Information Technology department at St. Michael’s Hospital for their help and support, and to Dr. Rosane Nisenbaum (Keenan Research Center), who provided additional statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    van Walraven C, Taljaard M, Bell CM, et al. Information exchange among physicians caring for the same patient in the community. CMAJ. 2008;179:1013–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Walraven C, Rokosh E. What is necessary for high-quality discharge summaries? Am J Med Qual. 1999;14:160–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:186–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore C, McGinn T, Halm E. Tying up loose ends: Discharging patients with unresolved medical issues. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1305–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker DW. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: Implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA. 2007;297:831–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tulloch AJ, Fowler GH, McMullan JJ, Spence JM. Hospital discharge reports: content and design. BMJ. 1975;4(5994):443–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mageean RJ. Study of "discharge communications" from hospital. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1986;293(6557):1283–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Walraven C, Weinberg AL. Quality assessment of a discharge summary system. CMAJ. 1995;152:1437–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macaulay EM, Cooper GG, Engeset J, Naylor AR. Prospective audit of discharge summary errors. Br J Surg. 1996;83:788–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Feinglass J, Liss D, Baker DW. Outpatient physicians’ satisfaction with discharge summaries and perceived need for an electronic discharge summary. J Hospital Med. 2006;1:317–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Walraven C, Laupacis A, Seth R, Wells G. Dictated versus database-generated discharge summaries: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ. 1999;160:319–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lissauer T, Paterson CM, Simons A, Beard RW. Evaluation of computer generated neonatal discharge summaries. Arch Dis Child. 1991;66:433–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Llewelyn DE, Ewins DL, Horn J, Evans TGR, McGregor AM. Computerised updating of clinical summaries: new opportunities for clinical practice and research? BMJ. 1988;297(6662):1504–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith RP, Holzman GB. The application of a computer data base system to the generation of hospital discharge summaries. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:803–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Feinglass J, et al. Creating a better discharge summary: Improvement in quality and timeliness using an electronic discharge summary. J Hosp Med. 2009;4:219–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Callen JL, Alderton M, McIntosh J. Evaluation of electronic discharge summaries: a comparison of documentation in electronic and handwritten discharge summaries. Int J Med Informatics. 2008;77:613–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weir CR, Nebeker JR. Critical issues in an electronic documentation system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007;11:786–90.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Walraven C, Mamdani M, Fang J, Austin PC. Continuity of care and patient outcomes after hospital discharge. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:624–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parry C, Mahoney E, Chalmers S, Coleman EA. Assessing the quality of transitional care: further applications of the Care Transitions Measure. Med Care. 2008;46:3137–322. Details of score available at www.caretransitions.org/documents/CTM3Specs0807.pdf (accessed May 21, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerry SM, Bland JM. The intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomisation. BMJ. 1998;316(7142):1455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Donnell HC, Kaushal R, Barron Y, Callahan MA, Adelman RD, Siegler EL. Physicians attitudes towards copy and pasting in electronic note writing. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;24:63–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Maslove
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Richard E. Leiter
    • 5
  • Joshua Griesman
    • 5
  • Corinne Arnott
    • 5
  • Ophyr Mourad
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Chi-Ming Chow
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
  • Chaim M. Bell
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineSt. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Health Policy Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.The Institute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s HospitalTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations