Evaluation of immediate discharge documents--room for improvement?

BACKGROUND: The Immediate Discharge Document is a tool used to communicate patient discharge information between hospitals and general practitioners. The standard of information provided may be variable, and sometimes delayed in arriving at the GP practice. Typed communication from the hospital can also be slow. This can result in difficulty managing patients in the community following their discharge. Our aim was to assess the quantity of information provided on Immediate Discharge Documents, and to assess the time scale taken for GPs to receive written communications from hospitals regarding patient discharges. An audit was initiated using a tool devised from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Publication no 5 and involving four general practices within City of Perth, Scotland. Data was collected over a 28-day period in June/July 2001, by examining Immediate Discharge Documents relevant to each practice population received during this period, and by noting the time of arrival of a final typed summary. Data was analysed by Tayside Audit Resource for Primary Care. A total of 244 Documents were audited. Most significant results include basic administrative detail lacking in up to 30%. Of total documents, 13% failed to record a main condition or diagnosis; 93% recorded drug information, but only in 28% were follow up plans clear; 60% were received within five days of discharge, whilst final typed summaries were received from the hospitals within four weeks only in 51%. CONCLUSION: These results show there to be room for improvement with regard communication of patient discharge information, in regard to both the content of information provided and the time it takes to arrive. We require to raise awareness of this problem amongst hospital colleagues involving clinical governance and audit staff, with the objective to improve the quality and timescale of information transfer. WHERE THIS PIECE FITS: It is known that effective information transfer between health professionals is vital to optimise patient care. This work gives further impetus to improve the current standard of communication, and confirms a significant time delay that it takes information to reach GPs from the hospital setting.

Disease management.

The disease management approach to patient care seeks to coordinate resources across the healthcare delivery system. The growing interest in evidence based medicine and outcomes, and a commitment to integrated care across the primary, secondary, and community care sectors, all contribute to making disease management an attractive idea. A combination of patient education, provider use of practice guidelines, appropriate consultation, and supplies of drugs and ancillary services all come together in the disease management process. But its effectiveness is largely untested, so evaluation is essential.

Managed care. Origins, principles, and evolution.

Managed care has entered the lexicon of healthcare reform, but confusion and ignorance surround its meaning and purpose. It seeks to cut the costs of health care while maintaining its quality, but the evidence that it is able to achieve these aims is mixed. As well as raising awareness and understanding of the issues surrounding managed care, this series considers whether managed care is desirable for the NHS. Developed in the United States as a response to spiralling healthcare costs and dysfunctional fragmented services, managed care is not a discrete activity but a spectrum of activities carried out in a range of organisational settings. Due to its constantly changing nature, managed care is a slippery concept--but all its permutations have in common an attempt to influence and modify the behaviour and practice of doctors and other health professionals towards cost effective care. Whatever potential managed care may hold in this regard, careful appraisal of its implications is essential.

Implications of managed care for health systems, clinicians, and patients.

The rhetoric and realities of managed care are easily confused. The rapid growth of managed care in the United States has had many implications for patients, doctors, employers, state and federal programmes, the health insurance industry, major medical institutions, medical research, and vulnerable patient populations. It has restricted patients' choice of doctors and limited access to specialists, reduced the professional autonomy and earnings of doctors, shifted power from the non-profit to the for-profit sectors and from hospitals and doctors to private corporations. It has also raised issues about the future structuring and financing of medical education and research and about practice ethics. However, managed care has also accorded greater prominence to the assessment of patient satisfaction, profiling and monitoring of doctors' work, the use of clinical guidelines and quality assurance procedures and indicated the potential to improve the integration and outcome of care.

Measuring the outcomes of disease management.

Discusses measuring outcomes in the context of disease management and provides a single framework in the form of a key question checklist. Identifies key stakeholders. Outlines levels of outcome monitoring, measurement and date type and source. The development of an evaluative culture is essential to successful outcome measurements.

Health Management Guide. Disease management.

Disease management has been described as a comprehensive, integrated approach to care and reimbursement based on the natural course of a disease. It requires a management approach which brings together research evidence, best practice and inter-professional and inter-agency working. Starting with the ideal of continuity of care for individual patients, it implies structured co-ordination of care over time and across primary, secondary and tertiary settings. The appeal of disease management is that it promises reduced costs, combined with increased quality of care and patient satisfaction. But the concept is open to different definitions and interpretations and its effectiveness in improving UK healthcare is still largely untested. This Health Management Guide removes the mystique behind disease management and puts it in the context of existing knowledge and practice. Treating it as a concept, rather than a specific technique, it distinguishes between its different potential applications, offers practical guidance on implementation, and reports on how NHS organisations are taking it forward.