We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Standardized or narrative discharge summaries. Which do family physicians prefer?
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether family physicians prefer discharge summaries in narrative or standardized format and to determine factors affecting this preference.
DESIGN: Mailed survey.
SETTING: Internal medicine ward at a teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 180 family physicians practising in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Of the original sample, 20 were not family physicians and were excluded. Of the 160 physicians remaining, 126 responded for a response rate of 78.8%.
INTERVENTION: For a stratified random sample of patients, medical records and narrative discharge summaries were abstracted using a data acquisition form to capture essential information. Information on completed forms was transformed into standardized summaries. Physicians were sent both narrative and standardized summaries.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Physicians' format preference as indicated on an ordinal 7-point scale.
RESULTS: The standardized format was preferred with a score of 4.28 versus 3.84 for the narrative (P < .05). Responses indicated the standardized format provided information most relevant to ongoing care, with a mean score of 4.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.48 to 5.15), and easier access to summary information (5.60, CI 5.30 to 5.89). The narrative summary better described patients' admission (3.54, CI 3.18 to 3.90). Preference for standardized summaries correlated with lengthier narrative summary (P < .05), shorter length of stay (P < .05), and physicians' dissatisfaction with previous summaries (P < .001). Standardized discharge summaries were significantly shorter (302 versus 619 words, P = .004) than narrative summaries.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians preferred a standardized format for discharge summaries. Format preference is influenced by physician, patient, and discharge summary characteristics.
DESIGN: Mailed survey.
SETTING: Internal medicine ward at a teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 180 family physicians practising in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Of the original sample, 20 were not family physicians and were excluded. Of the 160 physicians remaining, 126 responded for a response rate of 78.8%.
INTERVENTION: For a stratified random sample of patients, medical records and narrative discharge summaries were abstracted using a data acquisition form to capture essential information. Information on completed forms was transformed into standardized summaries. Physicians were sent both narrative and standardized summaries.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Physicians' format preference as indicated on an ordinal 7-point scale.
RESULTS: The standardized format was preferred with a score of 4.28 versus 3.84 for the narrative (P < .05). Responses indicated the standardized format provided information most relevant to ongoing care, with a mean score of 4.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.48 to 5.15), and easier access to summary information (5.60, CI 5.30 to 5.89). The narrative summary better described patients' admission (3.54, CI 3.18 to 3.90). Preference for standardized summaries correlated with lengthier narrative summary (P < .05), shorter length of stay (P < .05), and physicians' dissatisfaction with previous summaries (P < .001). Standardized discharge summaries were significantly shorter (302 versus 619 words, P = .004) than narrative summaries.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians preferred a standardized format for discharge summaries. Format preference is influenced by physician, patient, and discharge summary characteristics.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app