Understanding the influences on hospital discharge decision-making from patient, carer and staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Gaps in discharge planning are experienced by 41% of hospital patients in Australia. There is an established body of knowledge regarding the features of the discharge process that need to be improved to avoid subsequent hospital readmission and enhance the discharge experience. However, many of these studies have focused solely on factors related to unplanned hospital readmissions and there has been limited success in operationalising improvements to the discharge process. The aim of this study was to explore and describe the factors that influence the decision to discharge adult medical patients from hospital, from patient, carer and staff perspectives. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in one acute medical ward in Melbourne, Australia. The study data were collected by observations of clinical practice and semi-structured interviews with patients, carers and staff. Participants were: i) English-speaking adults identified for discharge home, ii) patient carers, and iii) staff involved in the discharge process. Observation data were analysed using content analysis and interviews data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one discharges were observed, and 65 participants were interviewed: 21 patients, two carers, and 42 staff. Most patients (76%) were identified as being ready for discharge during morning medical rounds, and 90% of discharge decisions were made collaboratively by the medical team and the patient. Carers were observed to be notified in 15 discharges by the patient (n = 8), doctors (n = 4), or nursing staff (n = 3). Five themes were constructed from thematic analysis of interviews: Readiness for Home, Fragmented Collaboration, Health Literacy, Unrealistic Expectations, and Care beyond Discharge. A collaborative team and supportive carers were considered to enhance risk assessment and discharge planning, however fragmented communication between clinicians, and between clinicians and patients/carers was a barrier to discharge decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the need for a more coordinated approach to discharge decision-making that optimises communication with patients and carers and multidisciplinary workflows and reduces fragmentation. The importance of patient-centred care and a personalised approach to care are well established. However, there is a need to design systems to customise the entirety of the patient journey, including the approach to discharge decision making.

Hospital discharge processes: Insights from patients, caregivers, and staff in an Australian healthcare setting.

Hospital discharge is a pivotal point in healthcare delivery, impacting patient outcomes and resource utilisation. Ineffective discharge processes contribute to unplanned hospital readmissions. This study explored hospital discharge process from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and healthcare staff. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with adult patients being discharged home from a medical ward, their caregivers, and healthcare staff at an Australian hospital. Thematic analysis followed established guidelines for qualitative research. A total of 65 interviews and 21 structured observations were completed. There were three themes: i) Communication, ii) System Pressure, and iii) Continuing Care. The theme 'Communication' highlighted challenges and inconsistencies in notifying patients, caregivers, and staff about discharge plans, leading to patient stress and frustration. Information overload during discharge hindered patient comprehension and satisfaction. Staff identified communication gaps between teams, resulting in uncertainty regarding discharge logistics. The theme 'System Pressure' referred to pressure to discharge patients quickly to free hospital capacity occasionally, even in the face of inadequate service provision on weekends and out-of-hours. The 'Continuing Care' theme drew attention to gaps in patient understanding of follow-up appointments, underscoring the need for clearer post-discharge instructions. The lack of structured systems for tracking referrals and post-discharge care coordination was also highlighted, potentially leading to fragmented care. The findings resonate with international literature and the current emphasis in Australia on improving communication during care transitions. Furthermore, the study highlights the tension between patient-centred care and health service pressure for bed availability, resulting in perceptions of premature discharges and unplanned readmissions. It underscores the need for strengthening community-based support and systems for tracking referrals to improve care continuity. These findings have implications for patient experience and safety and suggest the need for targeted interventions to optimise the discharge process.

Implementation and use of the Safewards model in healthcare services: A scoping review.

Safewards is a multi-intervention mental health nursing model of practice improvement aimed at preventing and reducing conflict and containment. The use of Safewards has now extended beyond mental health settings. Implementation of Safewards has been reported to be challenging and therefore requires an evidence-informed and structured approach. This review's objectives were to: (i) Comprehensively map approaches used to implement Safewards interventions; (ii) Characterise the outcomes measured in Safewards implementation studies; and (iii) Identify the facilitators and barriers to Safewards training and its implementation in practice. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods publications of Safewards, the interventions, evaluations, barriers and facilitators from all healthcare services internationally were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews were used to guide methodology. Data were reported according to the 12 items of the TIDieR. Twenty-seven publications reported the implementation of Safewards. Descriptions were limited for reporting items such as intervention descriptions, materials, resources, specific procedures and processes, modifications made to interventions and delivery of interventions and training. No consistent theoretical implementation framework was reported. Collaboration, leadership, feedback and co-design were strong drivers for staff buy-in, engagement and success for implementation in mental health and acute settings. Transparency, replicability and generalisation require a detailed description of all elements of an intervention being implemented. Without adequate information, only assumptions can be drawn about the clinical governance and process of the implementation and training, and it is difficult to conclude when attempting to replicate the interventions.

Effect of Safewards on reducing conflict and containment and the experiences of staff and consumers: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Safewards is an internationally adopted framework that provides interventions to reduce conflict and containment in healthcare settings. This systematic review evaluated the effect of Safewards on conflict and containment events in inpatient units and the perceptions of staff and consumers. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies were considered for inclusion. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, two reviewers independently screened, appraised, and extracted data. Qualitative data were synthesized using inductive-thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated with a convergent-segregated approach and presented in tabular and narrative format. A search of 13 databases and grey literature yielded 14 studies of variable methodological quality. Four studies reported reduced rates of conflict and one study reported reductions that were not statistically significant. Six studies reported reductions in rates of containment, three studies found no statistical significance and one study reported statistically significant reductions at follow-up. Staff and consumers in four studies reported an improved experience of safety. Three themes were developed as follows: (i) therapeutic hold, cohesion, support and the environment, (ii) conflict, containment and the experience of safety, and (iii) the complexities of adapting and embedding change. This review found most staff and consumers reported Safewards improved therapeutic relationships, cohesion, and ward atmosphere. Staff and consumers reported improved ward atmosphere, leading to consumer-centred, recovery-oriented care. Safewards improved the experience of safety from the perspective of staff and consumers when combined with ongoing training, leadership and time for consolidation. While results are promising they should be used cautiously until more robust evidence is established.