Patient-centered discharge summaries to support safety and individual health literacy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial in Austria.

BACKGROUND: To ensure a safe patient discharge from hospital it is necessary to transfer all relevant information in a discharge summary (DS). The aim of this study was to evaluate a bundle of measures to improve the DS for physicians, nurses and patients. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, four different versions of DS (2 original, 2 revised) were tested with physicians, nurses and patients. We used an evaluation sheet (Case report form, CRF) with a 6-point Likert scale (1 = completely agree; 6 = strongly disagree). RESULTS: In total, 441 participants (physicians n = 146, nurses n = 140, patients n = 155) were included in the study. Overall, the two revised DS received significant better ratings than the original DS (original 2.8 ± 0.8 vs. revised 2.1 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). Detailed results for the main domains are structured DS (original 1.9 ± 0.9 vs. revised 2.2 ± 1.3, p = 0.015), content (original 2.7 ± 0.9 vs revised 2.0 ± 0.9, p < 0.001) and comprehensibility (original 3.8 ± 1.2vs. revised 2.3 ± 1.2, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: With simple measures like avoiding abbreviations and describing indications or therapies with fixed contents, the DS can be significantly improved for physicians, nurses and patients at the same time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: First registration 13/11/2020 NCT04628728 at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , Update 15/03/2023.

Evaluation of the usefulness and understandability of information leaflets on fall prevention from the perspective of hospital patients and their relatives.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major problem among adults over 60 years. Multiple preventive measures must be taken. Written information leaflets can support the knowledge transfer and positively influence recall of the information provided. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to ensure usefulness and understandability of the information leaflets on home fall prevention from the target groups' perspective. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study with a feedback questionnaire for patients and relatives was conducted at a university hospital in Austria. Quantitative data analysis and qualitative content analysis according to Schreier were performed. RESULTS: The majority (63.9%) of patients rated the overall impression as "very good". 44.2% of the relatives rated it as "very good" and 23% as "good". The question "appealing design" was the only one with a statistically significant difference between patients and relatives. Subgroup analysis has shown a statistically significant difference between educational groups regarding the questions "easy to read" and "easy to understand". CONCLUSION: It could be shown that the information leaflets were already well tailored to the target group. The few comments regarding understandability were considered to improve the content of the information leaflets. A further evaluation regarding the benefit of the fall prevention leaflets in discharge management should be performed.

Speaking up about patient safety concerns: view of nursing students.

BACKGROUND: "Speaking up" is considered an important patient safety behaviour. The main idea is to voice patient safety concerns; however, several studies revealed that the organisational culture can be obstructive. In previous studies, we already identified barriers for doctors, nurses and medical students. In the current study, we explore how nursing students use "speaking up" during their internship in an academic teaching hospital. METHODS: Between 2019 and 2020, 212 nursing students were invited to take part in the survey. The validated Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (SUPS-Q) was used to assess speaking up behaviours in nursing students. The SUPS-Q consisted of three behaviour related scales (11 items), three culture related scales (11 items), a question regarding barriers to speak up as well as a clinical vignette assessing a hypothetical speaking up situation. RESULTS: In total, 118 nursing students took part in the survey (response rate: 56%). Most of them noticed specific safety concerns, observed errors or rule violations. The vignette was seen as very realistic and harmful to the patient. However, the majority responded that they did not speak up and remained silent. They reported a rather discouraging environment and high levels of resignation towards speaking up. However, more advanced students were less likely to speak up than less advanced students (p = 0.027). Most relevant barriers were fear of negative reaction (64%), reaction not predictable (62%) and ineffectiveness (42%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey results of nursing students imply that speaking-up behaviours and remaining silent are common behaviours and coexist in the same individual. The clinical vignette and barriers to speaking up revealed that a hierarchical system does not support speaking-up behaviours. Organizational development is needed to foster professional teamwork, support attentive listening, encourage critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

Design and preliminary evaluation of a newly designed patient-friendly discharge letter - a randomized, controlled participant-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy has been associated with poor health outcome and impaired use of healthcare services. The hospital discharge letter represents a key source of medical information for patients and can be used to address the problem of low health literacy. The aim of this project was to develop and evaluate a new, patient-directed, version of the discharge letter. METHODS: Based upon two conventional discharge letters (CDL; one surgical and one medical letter), two new, patient-friendly discharge letters (PFDL) were designed following 5 key principles: short sentences, few abbreviations, large font size, avoidance of technical terms and no more than 4 pages length. Medical undergraduates were randomized into two blinded groups (CDL, PFDL) and asked to assess the assigned letter for the 3 domains structure, content and patient-friendliness. Subsections were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = completely agree, 6 = completely disagree), the results of the survey were compared using the Mann-Whitney-U-Test with a p < 0.05 being the level of significance. RESULTS: In total, 74 undergraduates participated in this study. PFDL (35 participants) were rated significantly better than CDL (39 participants) regarding structure (median 1 vs. 2, p = 0.005), content (1 vs. 3, p < 0.001) and patient-friendliness (2 vs. 6, p < 0.001). Of all 17 subsections, PFDL were rated significantly better in 12 cases, and never worse than CDL. CONCLUSIONS: PFDL were rated significantly better than their CDL counterparts. Medical undergraduates were considered the ideal cohort, not being medical lays and yet unbiased regarding everyday clinical practice procedures. Further tests evaluating the impact of the PFDL on patient comprehension and health literacy are necessary.

A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis on the risks of medical discharge letters for patients' safety.

BACKGROUND: The medical discharge letter is an important communication tool between hospitals and other healthcare providers. Despite its high status, it often does not meet the desired requirements in everyday clinical practice. Occurring risks create barriers for patients and doctors. This present review summarizes risks of the medical discharge letter. METHODS: The research question was answered with a systematic literature research and results were summarized narratively. A literature search in the databases PubMed and Cochrane Library for Studies between January 2008 and May 2018 was performed. Two authors reviewed the full texts of potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility for inclusion. Literature on possible risks associated with the medical discharge letter was discussed. RESULTS: In total, 29 studies were included in this review. The major identified risk factors are the delayed sending of the discharge letter to doctors for further treatments, unintelligible (not patient-centered) medical discharge letters, low quality of the discharge letter, and lack of information as well as absence of training in writing medical discharge letters during medical education. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risks factors are associated with the medical discharge letter. There is a need for further research to improve the quality of the medical discharge letter to minimize risks and increase patients' safety.

Structure, content, unsafe abbreviations, and completeness of discharge summaries: A retrospective analysis in a University Hospital in Austria.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: The discharge summary (DS) is one of the most important instruments to transmit information to the treating general physician (GP). The objective of this study was to analyse important components of DS, structural characteristics as well as medical and general abbreviations. METHOD: One hundred randomly selected DS from five different clinics were evaluated by five independent reviewers regarding content, structure, abbreviations and conformity to the Austrian Electronic Health Records (ELGA) using a structured case report form. Abbreviations of all 100 DS were extracted. All items were scored on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" (or "not relevant"). Subsequently, the results were discussed among reviewers to achieve a consensus decision. RESULTS: The mandatory fields, reason for admission and diagnosis at discharge were present in 80% and 98% of DS. The last medication was fully scored in 48% and the recommended medication in 94% of 100 DS. There were significant overall differences among clinics for nine mandatory items. In total, 750 unexplained abbreviations were found in 100 DS. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, DS are often lacking important items. Particularly important are a detailed medication history and recommendations for further medication that should always be listed in each DS. It is thus necessary to design and implement changes that improve the completeness of DS. An important quality improvement can be achieved by avoiding the use of ambiguous abbreviations.

Risks in Management of Enteral Nutrition in Intensive Care Units: A Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have a high risk of developing malnutrition, and this is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. In clinical practice, nutrition, including enteral nutrition (EN), is often not prioritized. Resulting from this, risks and safety issues for patients and healthcare professionals can emerge. The aim of this literature review, inspired by the Rapid Review Guidebook by Dobbins, 2017, was to identify risks and safety issues for patient safety in the management of EN in critically ill patients in the ICU. Three databases were used to identify studies between 2009 and 2020. We assessed 3495 studies for eligibility and included 62 in our narrative synthesis. Several risks and problems were identified: No use of clinical assessment or screening nutrition assessment, inadequate tube management, missing energy target, missing a nutritionist, bad hygiene and handling, wrong time management and speed, nutritional interruptions, wrong body position, gastrointestinal complication and infections, missing or not using guidelines, understaffing, and lack of education. Raising awareness of these risks is a central aspect in patient safety in ICU. Clinical experts can use a checklist with 12 identified top risks and the recommendations drawn up to carry out their own risk analysis in clinical practice.

Attitudes of physicians towards target groups and content of the discharge summary: a cross-sectional analysis in Styria, Austria.

OBJECTIVES: The discharge summary (DS) represents one of the most important instruments to ensure a safe patient discharge from the hospital. They sometimes have poor quality in content and often include medical jargon, which the patient and their relatives cannot easily understand. Therefore, many risks for patient safety exist. This study investigated the questions for whom the DS is and which contents are necessary to ensure a safe treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Styria, Austria. PARTICIPANTS: 3948 internal and external physicians were consulted. INTERVENTIONS: An online survey consisting of 24 questions was conducted. The survey was distributed to physicians working in the province of Styria, Austria, in 2018 over a period of 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Attitudes of internal and external physicians in terms of target group, content and health literacy. RESULTS: In total, 1060 physicians participated in the survey. The DS is considered as a communication tool among physicians (97.9%) and the patients are also indicated as addressees (73.5%). Furthermore, there is a high level of agreement that understandable information in the DS leads to fewer questions of the patients (67.9%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the DS is not only seen as a document for the further treating physician but is also relevant for the patient. Incorporating the patient into their treatment at all levels may possibly strengthen the individual health literacy of the patient and their caring relatives.