BackgroundThere is a growing impetus to reorganize the hospital discharge process to reduce avoidable readmissions and costs. The aim of this study was to provide insight into hospital discharge problems and underlying causes, and to give an overview of solutions that guide providers and policy-makers in improving hospital discharge.MethodsThe Intervention Mapping framework was used. First, a problem analysis studying the scale, causes, and consequences of ineffective hospital discharge was carried out. The analysis was based on primary data from 26 focus group interviews and 321 individual interviews with patients and relatives, and involved hospital and community care providers. Second, improvements in terms of intervention outcomes, performance objectives and change objectives were specified. Third, 220 experts were consulted and a systematic review of effective discharge interventions was carried out to select theory-based methods and practical strategies required to achieve change and better performance.ResultsIneffective discharge is related to factors at the level of the individual care provider, the patient, the relationship between providers, and the organisational and technical support for care providers. Providers can reduce hospital readmission rates and adverse events by focusing on high-quality discharge information, well-coordinated care, and direct and timely communication with their counterpart colleagues. Patients, or their carers, should participate in the discharge process and be well aware of their health status and treatment. Assessment by hospital care providers whether discharge information is accurate and understood by patients and their community counterparts, are important examples of overcoming identified barriers to effective discharge. Discharge templates, medication reconciliation, a liaison nurse or pharmacist, regular site visits and teach-back are identified as effective and promising strategies to achieve the desired behavioural and environmental change.ConclusionsThis study provides a comprehensive guiding framework for providers and policy-makers to improve patient handover from hospital to primary care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-389) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPatient safety experts have postulated that increasing patient participation in communications during patient handovers will improve the quality of patient transitions, and that this may reduce hospital readmissions. Choosing strategies that enhance patient safety through improved handovers requires better understanding of patient experiences and preferences for participation.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to explore the patients’ experiences and perspectives related to the handovers between their primary care providers and the inpatient hospital.MethodsA qualitative secondary analysis was performed, based on individual and focus group patient interviews with 90 patients in five European countries.ResultsThe analysis revealed three themes: patient positioning in the handover process; prerequisites for patient participation and patient preferences for the handover process. Patients’ participation ranged from being the key actor, to sharing the responsibility with healthcare professional(s), to being passive participants. For active participation patients required both personal and social resources as well as prerequisites such as information and respect. Some patients preferred to be the key actor in charge; others preferred their healthcare professionals to be the key actors in the handover.ConclusionsPatients’ participation is related to the healthcare system, the activity of healthcare professionals’ and patients’ capacity for participation. Patients prefer a handover process where the responsibility is clear and unambiguous. Healthcare organisations need a clear and well-considered system of responsibility for handover processes, that takes into account the individual patient's need of clarity, and support in relation to his/hers own recourses.

The risk score based on seven objective and easily assessed factors can accurately predict MACCE occurrence after non-cardiac surgery in a population at intermediate-to-high surgery-specific risk.

BackgroundHandover practices at hospital discharge are relatively under-researched, particularly as regards the specific risks and additional requirements for handovers involving vulnerable patients with limited language, cognitive and social resources.ObjectiveTo explore handover practices at discharge and to focus on the patients’ role in handovers and on the potential additional risks for vulnerable patients.MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with patients, hospital professionals and primary care professionals in two hospitals and their associated primary care centres in Catalonia, Spain.ResultsWe identified handover practices at discharge that potentially put patients at risk. Patients did not feel empowered in the handover but were expected to transfer information between care providers. Professionals identified lack of medication reconciliation at discharge, loss of discharge information, and absence of plans for follow-up care in the community as quality and safety problems for discharge handovers. These occurred for all patients, but appeared to be more frequent and have a greater negative effect in patients with limited language comprehension and/or lack of family and social support systems.ConclusionsDischarge handovers are often haphazard. Healthcare professionals do not consider current handover practices safe, with patients expected to transfer information without being empowered to understand and act on it. This can lead to misinformation, omission or duplication of tests or interventions and, potentially, patient harm. Vulnerable patients may be at greater risk given their limited language, cognitive and social resources. Patient safety at discharge could benefit from strategies to enhance patient education and promote empowerment.

Objectives: To assess the prevalence of surgical site infection (SSI) after elective operations for colon and rectal cancer after the application of evidence-based preventive measures and to identify risk factors for SSI.

IntroductionPopulation ageing and increasing chronic illness burden have sparked interest in innovative care models. While self-management interventions (SMIs) are drawing increasing attention, evidence of their efficacy is mostly based on pairwise meta-analysis, generally derived from randomised controlled trials comparing interventions versus a control or no intervention. As such, relevant efficacy data for comparisons among different SMIs that can be applied to specific chronic conditions are missing. Therefore, the relevance of the available evidence for decision-making at clinical, organisational and policy levels is limited.AimTo identify, compare and rank the most effective and cost-effective SMIs for adults with four high-priority chronic conditions: type 2 diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,and heart failure.Methods and analysisAll activities will be conducted as part of the cost-effectiveness of self-management interventions in four high-priority chronic conditions in Europe(COMPAR-EU, Comparing effectiveness of self-management interventions in 4 high priority chronic diseases inEurope) Project, an European Union (EU)-funded project designed to bridge the gap between current knowledge and practice on SMIs. In the first phase of the project, we will develop and validate a taxonomy, and a Core Outcome Set for each condition. These activities will inform a series of systematic review and network meta-analysis about the effectiveness of SMIs. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the most effective SMIs and an evaluation of contextual factors. We will finally develop tailored decision-making tools for the different relevant stakeholders.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the local ethics committee (University Institute for Primary Care Research - IDIAP Jordi Gol). All patients and other stakeholders will provide informed consent prior to participation. This project has been funded by the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 754936). Results will be of interest to relevant stakeholder groups (patients, professionals, managers, policymakers and industry), and will be disseminated in a tailored multi-pronged approach that will include deployment of an interactive platform.

On the basis of the data, we hypothesize that the extent to which hospital care providers value handovers and the outreach to community care providers is critical to effective hospital discharge. Community care providers often are insufficiently informed about patient outcomes. Ongoing challenges with patient discharge often remain unspoken with opportunities for improvement overlooked. Interventions that address organizational culture as a key factor in discharge improvement efforts are needed.

The study identified expert consensus for designing learning outcomes for handoff training for medical students. Those outcomes considered most important were among those considered most difficult to achieve. There is an urgent need to address the preparation of newly qualified doctors to be proficient in handoff at the point of graduation; otherwise, this is a latent error within health care systems. This is a first step in this process.