Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Electronic Versus Dictated Hospital Discharge Summaries: a Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Patient care transitions are periods of enhanced risk. Discharge summaries have been used to communicate essential information between hospital-based physicians and primary care physicians (PCPs), and may reduce rates of adverse events after discharge.

OBJECTIVE

To assess PCP satisfaction with an electronic discharge summary (EDS) program as compared to conventional dictated discharge summaries.

DESIGN

Cluster randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Four medical teams of an academic general medical service.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was overall discharge summary quality, as assessed by PCPs using a 100-point visual analogue scale. Other endpoints included housestaff satisfaction (using a 100-point scale), adverse outcomes after discharge (combined endpoint of emergency department visits, readmission, and death), and patient understanding of discharge details as measured by the Care Transition Model (CTM-3) score (ranging from 0 to 100).

RESULTS

209 patient discharges were included over a 2-month period encompassing 1 housestaff rotation. Surveys were sent out for 188 of these patient discharges, and 119 were returned (63% response rate). No difference in PCP-reported overall quality was observed between the 2 methods (86.4 for EDS vs. 84.3 for dictation; P = 0.53). Housestaff found the EDS significantly easier to use than conventional dictation (86.5 for EDS vs. 49.2 for dictation; P = 0.03), but there was no difference in overall housestaff satisfaction. There was no difference between discharge methods for the combined endpoint for adverse outcomes (22 for EDS [21%] vs. 21 for dictation [20%]; P = 0.89), or for patient understanding of discharge details (CTM-3 score 80.3 for EDS vs. 81.3 for dictation; P = 0.81)

CONCLUSION

An EDS program can be used by housestaff to more easily create hospital discharge summaries, and there was no difference in PCP satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. van Walraven C, Taljaard M, Bell CM, et al. Information exchange among physicians caring for the same patient in the community. CMAJ. 2008;179:1013–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van Walraven C, Rokosh E. What is necessary for high-quality discharge summaries? Am J Med Qual. 1999;14:160–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:186–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moore C, McGinn T, Halm E. Tying up loose ends: Discharging patients with unresolved medical issues. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1305–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kripalani S, LeFevre F, Phillips CO, Williams MV, Basaviah P, Baker DW. Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: Implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA. 2007;297:831–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tulloch AJ, Fowler GH, McMullan JJ, Spence JM. Hospital discharge reports: content and design. BMJ. 1975;4(5994):443–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mageean RJ. Study of "discharge communications" from hospital. BMJ (Clin Res Ed). 1986;293(6557):1283–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. van Walraven C, Weinberg AL. Quality assessment of a discharge summary system. CMAJ. 1995;152:1437–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Macaulay EM, Cooper GG, Engeset J, Naylor AR. Prospective audit of discharge summary errors. Br J Surg. 1996;83:788–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Feinglass J, Liss D, Baker DW. Outpatient physicians’ satisfaction with discharge summaries and perceived need for an electronic discharge summary. J Hospital Med. 2006;1:317–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Walraven C, Laupacis A, Seth R, Wells G. Dictated versus database-generated discharge summaries: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ. 1999;160:319–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lissauer T, Paterson CM, Simons A, Beard RW. Evaluation of computer generated neonatal discharge summaries. Arch Dis Child. 1991;66:433–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Llewelyn DE, Ewins DL, Horn J, Evans TGR, McGregor AM. Computerised updating of clinical summaries: new opportunities for clinical practice and research? BMJ. 1988;297(6662):1504–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith RP, Holzman GB. The application of a computer data base system to the generation of hospital discharge summaries. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:803–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Feinglass J, et al. Creating a better discharge summary: Improvement in quality and timeliness using an electronic discharge summary. J Hosp Med. 2009;4:219–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Callen JL, Alderton M, McIntosh J. Evaluation of electronic discharge summaries: a comparison of documentation in electronic and handwritten discharge summaries. Int J Med Informatics. 2008;77:613–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Weir CR, Nebeker JR. Critical issues in an electronic documentation system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007;11:786–90.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Van Walraven C, Mamdani M, Fang J, Austin PC. Continuity of care and patient outcomes after hospital discharge. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:624–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parry C, Mahoney E, Chalmers S, Coleman EA. Assessing the quality of transitional care: further applications of the Care Transitions Measure. Med Care. 2008;46:3137–322. Details of score available at www.caretransitions.org/documents/CTM3Specs0807.pdf (accessed May 21, 2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kerry SM, Bland JM. The intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomisation. BMJ. 1998;316(7142):1455.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Donnell HC, Kaushal R, Barron Y, Callahan MA, Adelman RD, Siegler EL. Physicians attitudes towards copy and pasting in electronic note writing. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;24:63–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Bell is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Canadian Patient Safety Institute chair in Patient Safety and Continuity of Care. This study was funded by the University Of Toronto Chair of Medicine Quality Partners Program, and by a summer student grant from Li Ka-Shing Knowledge Institute, and Keenan Research Centre, St. Michael’s Hospital. The funding agencies had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Our thanks to the Information Technology department at St. Michael’s Hospital for their help and support, and to Dr. Rosane Nisenbaum (Keenan Research Center), who provided additional statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    David M. Maslove MD, FRCPC, Ophyr Mourad MD, MSc, FRCPC, Chi-Ming Chow MDCM, MSc, FRCPC, FACC & Chaim M. Bell MD, PhD, FRCPC

  2. Department of Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    David M. Maslove MD, FRCPC, Ophyr Mourad MD, MSc, FRCPC, Chi-Ming Chow MDCM, MSc, FRCPC, FACC & Chaim M. Bell MD, PhD, FRCPC

  3. Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Chaim M. Bell MD, PhD, FRCPC

  4. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Chaim M. Bell MD, PhD, FRCPC

  5. Keenan Research Centre in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    David M. Maslove MD, FRCPC, Richard E. Leiter BA, Joshua Griesman, Corinne Arnott, Ophyr Mourad MD, MSc, FRCPC, Chi-Ming Chow MDCM, MSc, FRCPC, FACC & Chaim M. Bell MD, PhD, FRCPC

Authors
  1. David M. Maslove MD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard E. Leiter BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua Griesman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Corinne Arnott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ophyr Mourad MD, MSc, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chi-Ming Chow MDCM, MSc, FRCPC, FACC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chaim M. Bell MD, PhD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chaim M. Bell MD, PhD, FRCPC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maslove, D.M., Leiter, R.E., Griesman, J. et al. Electronic Versus Dictated Hospital Discharge Summaries: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J GEN INTERN MED 24, 995–1001 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1053-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1053-2

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation