The objective of this study was to assess the quality of communications between hospitals and general practitioners (GPs). The proportion of medical records in which the patient's general practitioner (GP) was identified, the accuracy of medications recorded in the discharge summary, the proportion of GPs who received discharge summaries, and the timeliness of receipt of discharge summaries were all evaluated. Discussions were held with all stakeholders, the literature was reviewed and GPs were surveyed to identify potential measures of quality. These were then trialled to assess their utility and practicability. Timeliness, issues that required follow-up and treatment provided in hospital were of greatest importance to general practitioners. The GP's name was recorded in 88% of audited records. Few inaccuracies were detected in the medications recorded in the discharge summaries, and GPs received 77% of discharge summaries. Methods similar to those used in this study might be broadly applied to improve the quality of discharge communication throughout Australia.
IntroductionThe failure to follow-up pathology and medical imaging test results poses patient-safety risks which threaten the effectiveness, quality and safety of patient care. The objective of this project is to: (1) improve the effectiveness and safety of test-result management through the establishment of clear governance processes of communication, responsibility and accountability; (2) harness health information technology (IT) to inform and monitor test-result management; (3) enhance the contribution of consumers to the establishment of safe and effective test-result management systems.Methods and analysisThis convergent mixed-methods project triangulates three multistage studies at seven adult hospitals and one paediatric hospital in Australia.Study 1 adopts qualitative research approaches including semistructured interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observations to gain a better understanding of test-result communication and management practices in hospitals, and to identify patient-safety risks which require quality-improvement interventions.Study 2 analyses linked sets of routinely collected healthcare data to examine critical test-result thresholds and test-result notification processes. A controlled before-and-after study across three emergency departments will measure the impact of interventions (including the use of IT) developed to improve the safety and quality of test-result communication and management processes.Study 3 adopts a consumer-driven approach, including semistructured interviews, and the convening of consumer-reference groups and community forums. The qualitative data will identify mechanisms to enhance the role of consumers in test-management governance processes, and inform the direction of the research and the interpretation of findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Macquarie University. Findings will be disseminated in academic, industry and consumer journals, newsletters and conferences.
This paper describes a trial of the Canterbury GP After-Hours Service (CGPAHS), a GP staffed after-hours service within the Canterbury Hospital Emergency Department. It was decided not to continue the service beyond the twelve-month trial phase because the opportunity cost to do this was greater than existing alternative services. The efficiency of the service might have been improved had greater numbers of patients been referred to it, either from the adjacent emergency department or the local community. Reasons why the trial was not able to realise these efficiencies are explored.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.