Improving patients', carers' and primary care healthcare professionals' experiences of discharge communication from specialist palliative care to community settings: a protocol for a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have benefited from specialist intervention during periods of acute/complex palliative care needs often transition from specialist-to-primary care once such needs have been controlled. Effective communication between services is central to co-ordination of care to avoid the potential consequences of unmet needs, fragmented care, and poor patient and family experience. Discharge communications are a key component of care transitions. However, little is known about the experiences of those primarily receiving these communications, to include patients', carers' and primary care healthcare professionals. This study aims to have a better understanding of how the discharge communications from specialist palliative care services to primary care are experienced by patients, carers, and healthcare professionals, and how these communications might be improved to support effective patient-centred care. METHODS: This is a 15-month qualitative study. We will interview 30 adult patients and carers and 15 healthcare professionals (n = 45). We will seek a range of experiences of discharge communication by using a maximum variation approach to sampling, including purposively recruiting people from a range of demographic backgrounds from 4-6 specialist palliative care services (hospitals and hospices) as well as 5-7 general practices. Interview data will be analysed using a reflexive thematic approach and will involve input from the research and advisory team. Working with clinicians, commissioners, and PPI representatives we will co-produce a list of recommendations for discharge communication from specialist palliative care. DISCUSSION: Data collection may be limited by the need to be sensitive to participants' wellbeing needs. Study findings will be shared through academic publications and presentations. We will draft principles for how specialist palliative care clinicians can best communicate discharge with patients, carers, and primary care clinicians. These will be shared with clinicians, policy makers, commissioners, and PPI representatives and key stakeholders and organisations (e.g. Hospice UK) and on social media. Key outputs will be recommendations for a specialist palliative care discharge proforma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in ISRCTN Registry on 29.12.2023 ref: ISRCTN18098027.

Communication of palliative care needs in discharge letters from hospice providers to primary care: a multisite sequential explanatory mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The provision of palliative care is increasing, with many people dying in community-based settings. It is essential that communication is effective if and when patients transition from hospice to community palliative care. Past research has indicated that communication issues are prevalent during hospital discharges, but little is known about hospice discharges. METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study consisting of a retrospective review of hospice discharge letters, followed by hospice focus groups, to explore patterns in communication of palliative care needs of discharged patients and describe why these patients were being discharged. Discharge letters were extracted for key content information using a standardised form. Letters were then examined for language patterns using a linguistic methodology termed corpus linguistics. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the focus group transcripts. Findings were triangulated to develop an explanatory understanding of discharge communication from hospice care. RESULTS: We sampled 250 discharge letters from five UK hospices whereby patients had been discharged to primary care. Twenty-five staff took part in focus groups. The main reasons for discharge extracted from the letters were symptoms "managed/resolved" (75.2%), and/or the "patient wishes to die/for care at home" (37.2%). Most patients had some form of physical needs documented on the letters (98.4%) but spiritual needs were rarely documented (2.4%). Psychological/emotional needs and social needs were documented in 46.4 and 35.6% of letters respectively. There was sometimes ambiguity in "who" will be following up "what" in the discharge letters, and whether described patients' needs were resolved or ongoing for managing in the community setting. The extent to which patients received a copy of their discharge letter varied. Focus groups conveyed a lack of consensus on what constitutes "complexity" and "complex pain". CONCLUSIONS: The content and structure of discharge letters varied between hospices, although generally focused on physical needs. Our study provides insights into patterns associated with those discharged from hospice, and how policy and guidance in this area may be improved, such as greater consistency of sharing letters with patients. A patient-centred set of hospice-specific discharge letter principles could help improve future practice.

Discharge communication study: a realist evaluation of discharge communication experiences of patients, general practitioners and hospital practitioners, alongside a corresponding discharge letter sample.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a programme theory for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters. DESIGN: We used a realist evaluation approach and captured multiple perspectives of hospital discharge to refine our previously developed programme theory. General practitioner (GP), patient and hospital clinician views of a single discharge event in which they were all involved were collected using semi-structured interviews and surveys. These were then triangulated to match the corresponding discharge letter. Data were qualitatively synthesised and compared in meta-matrices before interrogation with realist logic of analysis to develop the programme theory that maps out how patients receiving discharge letters works in specific contexts. SETTING: 14 GP practices and four hospital trusts in West Midlands, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 10 complete matched cases (GP, patient and hospital practitioner), and a further 26 cases in which a letter was matched with two out of the three participants. RESULTS: We identified seven context mechanism outcome configurations not found through literature searching. These related to the broad concepts of: patient preference for receiving letters, patient comprehension of letters, patient-directed letters, patient harm and clinician views on patients receiving letters. 'Patient choice' was important to the success (or not) of the intervention. Other important contexts for positive effects included: letters written in plain English, lay explanations for jargon, verbal information also provided, no new information in letter and patient choice acknowledged. Three key findings were: patient understanding is perhaps greater than clinicians perceive, clinician attitudes are a barrier to patients receiving letters and that, negative outcomes more commonly manifested when patients had not received letters, rather than when they had. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest how patients receiving discharge letters could be improved to enhance patient outcomes. Our programme theory has potential for use in different healthcare contexts and as a framework for policy development relating to patient discharge.

What makes a "successful" or "unsuccessful" discharge letter? Hospital clinician and General Practitioner assessments of the quality of discharge letters.

BACKGROUND: Sharing information about hospital care with primary care in the form of a discharge summary is essential to patient safety. In the United Kingdom, although discharge summary targets on timeliness have been achieved, the quality of discharge summaries' content remains variable. METHODS: Mixed methods study in West Midlands, England with three parts: 1. General Practitioners (GPs) sampling discharge summaries they assessed to be "successful" or "unsuccessful" exemplars, 2. GPs commenting on the reasons for their letter assessment, and 3. surveying the hospital clinicians who wrote the sampled letters for their views. Letters were examined using content analysis; we coded 15 features (e.g. "diagnosis", "GP plan") based on relevant guidelines and standards. Free text comments were analysed using corpus linguistics, and survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-three GPs participated in selecting discharge letters; 46 clinicians responded to the hospital survey. There were statistically significant differences between "successful" and "unsuccessful" inpatient letters (n = 375) in relation to inclusion of the following elements: reason for admission (99.1% vs 86.5%); diagnosis (97.4% vs 74.5%), medication changes (61.5% vs 48.9%); reasons for medication changes (32.1% vs 18.4%); hospital plan/actions (70.5% vs 50.4%); GP plan (69.7% vs 53.2%); information to patient (38.5% vs 24.8%); tests/procedures performed (97.0% vs 74.5%), and test/examination results (96.2% vs 77.3%). Unexplained acronyms and jargon were identified in the majority of the sample (≥70% of letters). Analysis of GP comments highlighted that the overall clarity of discharge letters is important for effective and safe care transitions and that they should be relevant, concise, and comprehensible. Hospital clinicians identified several barriers to producing "successful" letters, including: juniors writing letters, time limitations, writing letters retrospectively from patient notes, and template restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The failure to uniformly implement national discharge letter guidance into practice is continuing to contribute to unsuccessful communication between hospital and general practice. While the study highlighted barriers to producing high quality discharge summaries which may be addressed through training and organisational initiatives, it also indicates a need for ongoing audit to ensure the quality of letters and so reduce patient risk at the point of hospital discharge.

Adult patient perspectives on receiving hospital discharge letters: a corpus analysis of patient interviews.

BACKGROUND: UK government guidelines and initiatives emphasise equity in delivery of care, shared decision-making, and patient-centred care. This includes sharing information with patients as partners in health decisions and empowering them to manage their health effectively. In the UK, general practitioners (GPs) routinely receive hospital discharge letters; while patients receiving copies of such letters is seen as "good practice" and recommended, it is not standardised. The effects and consequences of whether or not this happens remains unclear. The aim of this study (one of three forming the Discharge Communication Study) was to explore patient perspectives on receiving discharge letters and their views on how this could be improved in order to optimise patient experience and outcomes. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of 50 patients recruited from 17 GP surgeries within the West Midlands, UK. All participants were adults with a recent episode of general hospital inpatient or outpatient care. Data were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using mixed methods corpus linguistics techniques. RESULTS: Participants reported inconsistent access to discharge letters. Most wanted to receive a copy of their discharge letter although some expressed reservations. Perceived benefits included: increased understanding of their condition and treatment, reduced anxiety, and increased satisfaction. Consequences where participants had not received letters included: letter inaccuracies being overlooked, missed follow up actions, failure to fully remember diagnosis, treatment, or self-management or recommendations, and confusion and anxiety at what occurred and what will happen next. Participants felt the usefulness of receiving copies of letters could be increased by: including a patient information section, avoidance of acronyms, and jargon or technical terms explained with lay language. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients value receiving copies of hospital discharge letters, and should be consistently offered them. Patients' preferences for letter receipt could be logged in their health records. To enable positive outcomes letters should have a clear and accessible format that reflects the priorities and information needs of patients. Patients appear not to be receiving or being offered copies of letters consistently despite UK policies and guidelines supporting this practice; this suggests a need for greater standardisation of practice.

GP perspectives on hospital discharge letters: an interview and focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Written discharge communication following inpatient or outpatient clinic discharge is essential for communicating information to the GP, but GPs' opinions on discharge communication are seldom sought. Patients are sometimes copied into this communication, but the reasons for this variation, and the resultant effects, remain unclear. AIM: To explore GP perspectives on how discharge letters can be improved in order to enhance patient outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: The study used narrative interviews with 26 GPs from 13 GP practices within the West Midlands, England. METHOD: Interviews were transcribed and data were analysed using corpus linguistics (CL) techniques. RESULTS: Elements pivotal to a successful letter were: diagnosis, appropriate follow-up plan, medication changes and reasons, clinical summary, investigations and/or procedures and outcomes, and what information has been given to the patient. GPs supported patients receiving discharge letters and expounded a number of benefits of this practice; for example, increased patient autonomy. Nevertheless, GPs felt that if patients are to receive direct discharge letter copies, modifications such as use of lay language and avoidance of acronyms may be required to increase patient understanding. CONCLUSION: GPs reported that discharge letters frequently lacked content items they assessed to be important; GPs highlighted that this can have subsequent ramifications on resources and patient experiences. Templates should be devised that put discharge letter elements assessed to be important by GPs to the forefront. Future research needs to consider other perspectives on letter content, particularly those of patients.

The Discharge Communication Study: research protocol for a mixed methods study to investigate and triangulate discharge communication experiences of patients, GPs, and hospital professionals, alongside a corresponding discharge letter sample.

BACKGROUND: Discharge letters are crucial during care transitions from hospital to home. Research indicates a need for improvement to increase quality of care and decrease adverse outcomes. These letters are often sent from the hospital discharging physician to the referring clinician, typically the patient's General Practitioner (GP) in the UK, and patients may or may not be copied into them. Relatively little is known about the barriers and enablers to sending patients discharge letters. Hence, the aim of this study was to investigate from GP, hospital professional (HP) and patient perspectives how to improve processes of patients receiving letters and increase quality of discharge letters. The study has a particular focus on the impacts of receiving or not receiving letters on patient experiences and quality of care. METHODS: The setting was a region in the West Midlands of England, UK. The research aimed to recruit a minimum of 30 GPs, 30 patients and 30 HPs in order to capture 90 experiences of discharge communication. Participating GPs initially screened and selected a range of recent discharge letters which they assessed to be successful and unsuccessful exemplars. These letters identified potential participants who were invited to take part: the HP letter writer, GP recipient and patient. Participant viewpoints are collected through interviews, focus groups and surveys and will be "matched" to the discharge letter sample, so forming multiple-perspective "quartet" cases. These "quartets" allow direct comparisons between different discharge experiences within the same communicative event. The methods for analysis draw on techniques from the fields of Applied Linguistics and Health Sciences, including: corpus linguistics; inferential statistics; content analysis. DISCUSSION: This mixed-methods study is novel in attempting to triangulate views of patients, GPs and HPs in relation to specific discharge letters. Patient and practitioner involvement will inform design decisions and interpretation of findings. Recommendations for improving discharge letters and the process of patients receiving letters will be made, with the intention of informing guidelines on discharge communication. Ethics approval was granted in July 2017 by the UK Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, reports and newsletters, and presentations.

Improving best practice for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how different outcomes are achieved from adult patients receiving hospital discharge letters from inpatient and outpatient settings. DESIGN: Realist review conducted in six main steps: (1) development of initial theory, (2) searching, (3) screening and selection, (4) data extraction and analysis, (5) data synthesis and (6) programme theory (PT) refinement. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents reporting evidence that met criteria for relevance to the PT. Documents relating solely to mental health or children aged <18 years were excluded. ANALYSIS: Data were extracted and analysed using a realist logic of analysis. Texts were coded for concepts relating to context, mechanism, outcome configurations (CMOCs) for the intervention of patients receiving discharge letters. All outcomes were considered. Based on evidence and our judgement, CMOCs were labelled 'positive' or 'negative' in order to clearly distinguish between contexts where the intervention does and does not work. RESULTS: 3113 documents were screened and 103 were included. Stakeholders contributed to refining the PT in step 6. The final PT included 48 CMOCs for how outcomes are affected by patients receiving discharge letters. 'Patient choice' emerged as a key influencer to the success (or not) of the intervention. Important contexts were identified for both 'positive' CMOCs (eg, no new information in letter) and 'negative' CMOCs (eg, letter sent without verifying patient contact details). Two key findings were that patient understanding is possibly greater than clinicians perceive, and that patients tend to express strong preference for receiving letters. Clinician concerns emerged as a barrier to wider sharing of discharge letters with patients, which may need to be addressed through organisational policies and direction. CONCLUSIONS: This review forms a starting point for explaining outcomes associated with whether or not patients receive discharge letters. It suggests several ways in which current processes might be modified to support improved practice and patient experience.

Improving best practise for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Discharge documents are important for transferring information from hospitals to the referring clinician; in the UK and many countries, this is often the patient's general practitioner or family physician. However, patients may or may not receive their discharge letters, and whether patients should routinely receive discharge letters remains unclear. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will consolidate evidence on patients receiving discharge letters through the theory-driven approach of a realist review.The review will be conducted systematically and seek to explain how, why, for whom and in what contexts does this practice 'work'. The review will specifically explore whether there are benefits of this practice and if so what are the important contexts for triggering the mechanisms associated with these outcome benefits. Negative effects will also be considered.Several steps will occur: devising initial rough programme theory, searching the evidence, selecting relevant documents, extracting data, synthesising and finally programme theory refinement. As the process is viewed as iterative, this cycle of steps may be repeated as many times as is necessary to reach theoretical saturation and may not be linear.The initial programme theory will be tested and refined throughout the review process and by stakeholder involvement of National Health Service (NHS) policy makers, practitioners and service users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical review is not required. The resulting programme theory is anticipated to explain how the intervention of patients receiving written discharge communication may work in practice, for whom and in what contexts; this will inform best practice of patients receiving discharge communication. The review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations and discussions with relevant organisations and stakeholders. While the review will be from the perspective of the UK NHS, its findings should be relevant to other healthcare systems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069863.

Learning from patients: trainers' use of narratives for learning and teaching.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in how doctors learn from narratives about individual cases, reflected, for example, in the use of e-portfolios. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate how GP trainers conceptualised 'learning from patients', and what use they currently made of narrative recounts in training. DESIGN & SETTING: Thematic analysis (TA) and corpus-linguistic (CL) analysis, with data collected from a convenience sample of trainers in the UK, Ireland, and Spain. METHOD: GP trainers in the three settings were contacted, and volunteers recruited (22 in UK, 24 in Ireland, and 16 in Spain). Volunteers were interviewed and asked to offer a narrative about 'a patient you learned from' and whether they used narratives as a training device. RESULTS: There were no differences between settings. Trainers described an engaged and personal relationship with patients. They described learning about themselves, the human condition, and about how to live and die well. Their narratives were structured in various ways. At times, they led to precise conclusions: at times, they were perceived as meaningful, but resisting analysis. As regards teaching through narrative, it was reported as commonly used, but present practice appears ad hoc rather than planned. DISCUSSION: The lack of difference between settings suggests a degree of commonality about how trainers perceive learning and teaching in the areas explored, but cannot be generalised further. The level of personal engagement was more than anticipated, and suggests the label 'doctor-patient relationship', as the term is used, may not be adequate to describe the nature of some interactions.