GP and Hospital Doctor Perspectives on the Hospital Patient Discharge Process

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
M Wills ◽  
L Hyland ◽  
T Chearman ◽  
F Cross ◽  
K Verrier-Jones
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 278-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sally Bullock ◽  
Charles W Morecroft ◽  
Rachel Mullen ◽  
Alison B Ewing

Author(s):  
Adriéli Donati Mauro ◽  
Danielle Fabiana Cucolo ◽  
Marcia Galan Perroca

ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze how the articulation between hospital and primary health care related to patient discharge and continuity of care after hospitalization takes place. Method: Qualitative study, using the focus group technique to explore the experience of 21 nurses in hospitals (n = 10) and at primary care (n = 11) in a municipality in the northwest area of the State of São Paulo. Data collection took place between December 2019 and April 2020. Four focus groups were carried out (two in the hospital and two in the health units) and the findings underwent thematic analysis. Results: The categories identified were: Patient inclusion flow in the responsible discharge planning, Patient/family member/caregiver participation, Care planning, Communication between services, and Challenges in the discharge process. According to reports, the discharge process is centered on bureaucratic aspects with gaps in communication and coordination of care. Conclusion: This research allowed understanding how nurses from different points of health care experience the discharge and (dis)articulation of the team work. The findings can equip managers in the (re)agreement of practices and integration of services to promote continuity of care.


Medical Care ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 586-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arpita Chattopadhyay ◽  
Andrew B. Bindman

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S67-S68
Author(s):  
J.N. Hall ◽  
J.P. Graham ◽  
M. McGowan ◽  
A.H. Cheng

Introduction: Discharge from the Emergency Department (ED) is a high-risk period for communication failures. Clear verbal and written discharge instructions at patient-level health literacy are fundamental to a safe discharge process. As part of a hospital-wide quality initiative to measure and improve discharge processes, and in response to patient feedback, the St. Michael’s Hospital ED and patient advisors co-designed and implemented patient-centred discharge handouts. Methods: The design and implementation of discharge handouts was based on a collaborative and iterative approach, including stakeholder engagement and patient co-design. Discharge topics were based on the 10 most common historical ED diagnoses. ED patient advisors and the hospital’s plain language review team co-designed and edited materials for readability and comprehension. Process mapping of ED workflow identified opportunities for interventions. Multidisciplinary ED stakeholders co-led implementation, including staff education, training and huddles for feedback. Patient telephone surveys to every 25th patient presenting to the ED meeting the study inclusion criteria (16 years of age or older, directly discharged from the ED, speaks English, has a valid telephone number, and has capacity to consent) were conducted both pre- (June-Sept 2016) and post- (Oct-Dec 2016) implementation. Results: Stakeholder engagement and co-design took place over 10 months. Education was provided across one MD staff meeting, four RN inservices, and at monthly learner orientation. 44846 patients presented to the ED and 25600 met the study inclusion criteria. 935 surveys (response rate=97%; declined n=30) were completed to date. Pre-implementation (n=467), 9.2% (n=43) of patients received printed discharge materials and 71% (n=330) understood symptoms to look for after leaving the ED. Post-implementation (n=468), 44% (n=207) of patients received printed discharge materials with 97% (n=200) finding the handouts helpful and 82% (n=385) understanding symptoms to look for after leaving the ED. Conclusion: Through the introduction of patient co-designed and patient-centred discharge handouts, we have found a marked improvement in patient understanding, and consequently safer discharge practices. Future efforts will focus on optimizing discharge communication, both verbal and written, tailored to individual patient preferences.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Emes ◽  
Stella Smith ◽  
Suzanne Ward ◽  
Alan Smith ◽  
Timothy Ming

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (S1) ◽  
pp. S217-S218
Author(s):  
Sarah Saxena ◽  
Alberto Gutierrez Vozmediano ◽  
Katrina Walsh ◽  
Sarah Moodie ◽  
Rumbi Mapfumo

AimsViolent or aggressive incidents can be relatively common in community settings, and perhaps more difficult to manage than at inpatient wards due to the relative isolation and peripatetic delivery model, which can put staff at higher risk during incidents. Carshalton and Wallington Recovery Support team was identified as an outlier in the Trust and was invited to partake in a Safety Collaborative across South London Partnership.Stakeholders agreed on the aim of reducing incidents by 20% over 1 year by the end of 2020.MethodData about incidents were analysed and staff surveys conducted to evaluate violent events. Patient discharge was highlighted as a particular time of increased aggression. Involvement of patients and carers through patient focus groups and co-production was essential to elicit areas of improvement. These included staff confidence and awareness of existing guidelines. Additional secondary drivers were communication with patients, care pathway development, discharge process and multidisciplinary approach, which each had associated change ideas.The team identified change ideas that have been tested over one year using the Quality Improvement methodology of small-scale testing and PDSA. Example ideas tested include multidisciplinary Risk meetings, Safety huddle tool, Staff Safety training, co-produced Welcome and Discharge Packs with informed care pathways.ResultThere has been a 30% reduction in incidents by December 2020 across a total of 280 patients. Surveys have shown an increase in staff confidence and safety protocol awareness from 40% to 70% by October 2020. 100% of patients in focus groups found the Welcome and Discharge Packs helpful.ConclusionA structured improvement approach focused on staff safety and minimisation of known and potential contributing factors can lead to a reduction in incidents. Safety huddles and risk meetings allow a formal multidisciplinary approach to management of violence and aggression. Staff feel more reassured about safety policies in the trust, with better communication between senior management and colleagues to highlight risk and provide support. A culture of open discussion and transparency was implemented through provision of Welcome Packs including Care and Discharge Pathways details at point of entry to the service. Support was provided to patients with Discharge Packs including information about community services. This enabled a meaningful support model at the end of their recovery journey and an improved discharge process.The team is now working with additional teams and administrative and clerical staff to improve safety. We hope to replicate this approach in our Trust.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document