The Ideal Hospital Discharge Summary: A Survey of U.S. Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospital discharge summaries enable communication between inpatient and outpatient physicians. Despite existing guidelines for discharge summaries, they are frequently suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess physicians' perspectives about discharge summaries and the differences between summaries' authors (hospitalists) and readers (primary care physicians [PCPs]). METHODS: A national survey of 1600 U.S. physicians was undertaken. Primary measures included physicians' preferences in discharge summary standardization, content, format, and audience. RESULTS: A total of 815 physicians responded (response rate = 51%). Eighty-nine percent agreed that discharge summaries "should have a standardized format." Most agreed that summaries should "document everything that was done, found, and recommended in the hospital" (64%) yet "only include details that are highly pertinent to the hospitalization" (66%). Although 74% perceived patients as an important audience of discharge summaries, only 43% agreed that summaries "should be written in language that patients…can easily understand," and 68% agreed that it "should be written solely for provider-to-provider communication." Compared with hospitalists, PCPs preferred comprehensive summaries (68% versus 59%, P = 0.002). More PCPs agreed that separate summaries should be created for patients and for provider-to-provider communication than hospitalists (60% versus 47%, P < 0.001). Compared with PCPs, more hospitalists believe that "hospitalists are too busy to prepare a high-quality discharge summary" (44% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and "PCPs have insufficient time to read an entire discharge summary" (60% versus 38%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians believe that discharge summaries should have a standardized format but do not agree on how comprehensive or in what format they should be. Efforts are necessary to build consensus toward the ideal discharge summary.

Inter- and Intraoperator Variability in Measurement of On-Site CT-derived Fractional Flow Reserve Based on Structural and Fluid Analysis: A Comprehensive Analysis.

PURPOSE: To measure the inter- and intraobserver variability among operators of varying expertise in conducting CT-derived fractional flow reserve (CT FFR) measurements on-site by using structural and fluid analysis and to evaluate differences in reproducibility between two different training methods for end users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the prospectively enrolled cohort included 22 symptomatic patients who underwent both 320-detector row coronary CT angiography and catheter-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) within 90 days. Thirteen operators of varying expertise were assigned to one of two training arms: arm 1, on-site training by a specialist in CT FFR technology; arm 2, self-training through use of written materials. After the training, all 13 operators reviewed the CT data and measured CT FFR in 24 vessels in 22 patients. Inter- and intraoperator variability and agreements between CT FFR and catheter-derived FFR measurements were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) among operators was 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.58, 0.83) with a mean absolute difference (± standard deviation) of 0.027 ± 0.022. The operators in arm 2 showed greater interoperator differences than those in arm 1 (0.031 ± 0.024 vs 0.023 ± 0.018; P = .024). Among operators who recalculated CT FFR, the mean CT FFR value did not significantly differ between the first and second calculations (ICC, 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.46, 0.87), with the medical specialists producing the lowest intraoperator variability (0.053 ± 0.060). The overall correlation coefficient between CT FFR and catheter FFR was r = 0.61, with a mean absolute difference of 0.096 ± 0.089. CONCLUSION: Good reproducibility of CT FFR values calculated on-site on the basis of structural and fluid analysis was observed among operators of varying expertise. Face-to-face training sessions may cause less variability.© RSNA, 2019Supplemental material is available for this article.