Compliance with Emergency Department Discharge Instructions

Gignon, Maxime; Ammirati, Christine; Mercier, Romain; Detave, Matthieu

doi:10.1016/j.jen.2012.10.004

Cited by 33 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Follow-up studies carried out internationally have shown that even positive assessments of a clinician's information-giving practices by patients do not correlate with patients' comprehension levels and subsequent abilities to adhere appropriately to recommended treatment regimens following their discharge Engel et al 2009;Gignon et al 2013). Patient comprehension of a diagnosis and of how to treat their condition is essential for effective health outcomes, including patient satisfaction and treatment adherence (Clancy 2009) and ability to seek and access follow-up care (Alberti and Nannini 2013).…”

Section: Research On Patient Experience and Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating in Hospital Emergency Departments

Slade

Manidis

McGregor

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Research On Patient Experience and Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating in Hospital Emergency Departments

Slade

Manidis

McGregor

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[47][48][49] Nonetheless, providers should be mindful that understanding may be poor, and was demonstrated as less than 50% in one series of qualitative interviews of patients recently discharged from the ED (n = 36). 50 Simmons et al investigated the use of a written communication instrument to improve patient comprehension of ED treatment and the effect on satisfaction. The study failed to demonstrate this intervention improved either satisfaction or comprehension of instructions, although did demonstrate that comprehension was especially reduced in the elderly.…”

Section: Information Provisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding team, interpersonal and situational factors is essential for routine communication with patients in the emergency department (ED): A scoping literature review and formation of the ‘T.IP.S’ conceptual framework

Graham

Smith

2016

Journal of Communication in Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Most patient-provider communication skills frameworks focus on interpersonal behaviours within the context of a single consultation. In contrast, Emergency Department (ED) patient encounters consist of many new interactions with different professionals over a short time period. Additionally, ED care often occurs in a chaotic, unpredictable, and overcrowded environment. While these factors are recognised to present a major challenge to effective patient-provider communication in the ED, there is no accepted framework to guide how professionals or teams should approach and optimise communication with patients in the ED. Objectives This review aims to identify the current literature relating to routine patient provider communication processes in the ED and synthesise a new framework to enhance understanding of routine patient-provider communication processes in the ED. Methods Searches of Scopus, Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL were conducted to identify literature written between 2000 and 2016 using the terms ((communication OR consultation OR health literacy) AND (patient) AND (emergency medicine OR emergency department)). Results Fifty-five relevant articles were selected for final inclusion. A qualitative synthesis was conducted and content interpreted as either facilitating factors or obstacles to routine ED communication were coded and grouped into three overarching

show abstract

“…The difficulty with which patients access discharge instructions has previously been described [16], but the most effective manner of communicating specific instructions to patients remains unclear. Discharge education for patients presenting to the ED with complaints as diverse as acute anaphylaxis, hypoglycemia, and minor head injury has been found to be lacking [17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%