BACKGROUND:Deficits in information transfer between inpatient and outpatient physicians are common and potentially dangerous.OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of a newly‐created electronic discharge summary.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:Pre‐post evaluation of discharge summaries using a survey of outpatient physicians and a medical records review.MEASUREMENTS:Outpatient physicians' ratings of satisfaction with discharge summaries before and after implementation of an electronic discharge summary using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied). Additionally, 196 randomly selected discharge summaries before and after implementation were rated for timeliness and presence of 16 key content areas by 3 internists.RESULTS:Two hundred and twenty‐six of 416 (54%) and 256 of 397 (64%) outpatient physicians completed the baseline and postimplementation surveys. Satisfaction with quality and timeliness of discharge summaries improved with the use of the electronic discharge summary (mean quality rating 3.04 versus 3.64; P < 0.001, mean timeliness rating 2.59 versus 3.34; P < 0.001). A higher percentage of electronic discharge summaries were completed within 3 days of discharge as compared with dictated discharge summaries (44.8% versus 74.1%; P < 0.001). Several elements of the discharge summary were present more often with the electronic discharge summary, including discussion of follow‐up issues (52.0% versus 75.8%; P = 0.001), pending test results (13.9% versus 46.3%; P < 0.001), and information provided to the patient and/or family (85.1% versus 95.8%; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONS:The use of an electronic discharge summary significantly improved the quality and timeliness of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2009;4:219–225. © 2009 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds significantly reduced the adjusted rate of AEs in a medical teaching unit.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate hospitalized patients' understanding of their plan of care. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Interviews of a cross-sectional sample of hospitalized patients and their physicians were conducted from June 6 through June 26, 2008. Patients were asked whether they knew the name of the physician and nurse responsible for their care and specific questions about 6 aspects of the plan of care for the day (primary diagnosis, planned tests, planned procedures, medication changes, physician services consulted, and the expected length of stay). Physicians were interviewed and asked about the plan of care in the same fashion as for the patients. Two board-certified internists reviewed responses and rated patientphysician agreement on each aspect of the plan of care as none, partial, or complete agreement. RESULTS:Of 250 eligible patients, 241 (96%) agreed to be interviewed. A total of 233 (97%) of 241 physicians completed the interview, although sample sizes vary because of missing data elements. Of 239 patients, 77 (32%) correctly named at least 1 of their hospital physicians, and 143 patients (60%) correctly named their nurses. For each aspect of care, patients and physicians lacked agreement on the plan of care in a large number of instances. Specifically, there was no agreement between patients and physicians on planned tests or procedures for the day in 87 (38%) of 229 instances and in 22 (10%) of 220 instances. Complete agreement on the anticipated length of stay occurred in only 85 (39%) of 218 instances.CONCLUSION: A substantial portion of hospitalized patients do not understand their plan of care. Patients' limited understanding of their plan of care may adversely affect their ability to provide informed consent for hospital treatments and to assume their own care after discharge.

Although nurses and physicians were able to identify one another and communicated more frequently after localizing physicians to specific patient care units, there was little impact on nurse-physician agreement on the plan of care.

We found relatively poor agreement between traditional trigger tool and EDW based screening with only approximately a third of all AEs detected by both methods. A combination of complementary methods is the optimal approach to detecting AEs among hospitalised patients.

Nurses and physicians did not reliably communicate with one another and were often not in agreement on the plan of care for hospitalised medical patients.

In a prior study involving 2 medical units, Structured Interdisciplinary Rounds (SIDRs) improved teamwork and reduced adverse events (AEs). SIDR was implemented on 5 additional units, and a pre- versus postintervention comparison was performed. SIDR combined a structured format for communication with daily interprofessional meetings. Teamwork was assessed using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (score range = 0-100), and AEs were identified using queries of information systems confirmed by 2 physician researchers. Paired analyses for 82 professionals completing surveys both pre and post implementation revealed improved teamwork (mean 76.8 ± 14.3 vs 80.5 ± 11.6; P = .02), which was driven mainly by nurses (76.4 ± 14.1 vs 80.8 ± 10.4; P = .009). The AE rate was similar across study periods (3.90 vs 4.07 per 100 patient days; adjusted IRR = 1.08; P = .60). SIDR improved teamwork yet did not reduce AEs. Higher baseline teamwork scores and lower AE rates than the prior study may reflect a positive cultural shift that began prior to the current study.