Background: Advocates for quality and safety have called for healthcare that is patient-centred and decision-making that involves patients. Objective: The aim of the paper is to explore the barriers and facilitators to patient-centred care in the hospital discharge process. Methods: A qualitative study using purposive sampling of 192 individual interviews and 26 focus group interviews was conducted in five European Union countries with patients and/or family members, hospital physicians and nurses, and community general practitioners and nurses. A modified Grounded Theory approach was used to analyse the data. Results: The barriers and facilitators were classified into 15 categories from which four themes emerged: (1) healthcare providers do not sufficiently prioritise discharge consultations with patients and family members due to time restraints and competing care obligations; (2) discharge communication varied from instructing patients and family members to shared decision-making; (3) patients often feel unprepared for discharge, and postdischarge care is not tailored to individual patient needs and preferences; and (4) pressure on available hospital beds and community resources affect the discharge process. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that involvement of patients and families in the preparations for discharge is determined by the extent to which care providers are willing and able to accommodate patients' and families' capabilities, needs and preferences. Future interventions should be directed at healthcare providers' attitudes and their organisation's leadership, with a focus on improving communication among care providers, patients and families, and between hospital and community care providers.

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.

Background Procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic stewardship (ABS) has been shown to reduce antibiotics (ABxs), with lower side-effects and an improvement in clinical outcomes. The aim of this experts workshop was to derive a PCT algorithm ABS for easier implementation into clinical routine across different clinical settings. Methods Clinical evidence and practical experience with PCT-guided ABS was analyzed and discussed, with a focus on optimal PCT use in the clinical context and increased adherence to PCT protocols. Using a Delphi process, the experts group reached consensus on different PCT algorithms based on clinical severity of the patient and probability of bacterial infection. Results The group agreed that there is strong evidence that PCT-guided ABS supports individual decisions on initiation and duration of ABx treatment in patients with acute respiratory infections and sepsis from any source, thereby reducing overall ABx exposure and associated side effects, and improving clinical outcomes. To simplify practical application, the expert group refined the established PCT algorithms by incorporating severity of illness and probability of bacterial infection and reducing the fixed cut-offs to only one for mild to moderate and one for severe disease (0.25 μg/L and 0.5 μg/L, respectively). Further, guidance on interpretation of PCT results to initiate, withhold or discontinue ABx treatment was included. Conclusions A combination of clinical patient assessment with PCT levels in well-defined ABS algorithms, in context with continuous education and regular feedback to all ABS stakeholders, has the potential to improve the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients suspected of bacterial infection, thereby improving ABS effectiveness.

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 BJS team wish to reach out to express our support and gratitude to surgeons and healthcare workers around the globe. These are difficult times and your leadership is key to providing the best care possible. BJS welcomes submissions relating to the challenges faced in this pandemic (expect publication within a week). A blog has been launched (cuttingedgeblog.com) and publication of accepted pieces will be within hours.