Results of studies of traditional immediate discharge letters
| Author, year | Country population | Information content + accuracy | Medicine information accuracy | GP satisfaction | Potential patient harm | Legibility | Communication method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexton et al, 2000 | UK | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Only 9.9% sent by electronic means; 19 different combinations |
| Wilson et al, 2001 | Australia General | Errors in all parts of the discharge document assessed as 63.6% accurate | 17.5% errors; 21% no medicine information recorded | GP prefer fax communication method | NA | 77% mostly legible or legible | NA |
| Foster et al, 2002 | UK Unknown | 20% no admission or discharge dates, 13% no diagnosis | NA | NA | NA | 39% legible signature | NA |
| McMillan et al, 2006 | New Zealand Medical/surgical | NA | More errors per patients in medical wards (1.42) than surgical wards (0.81) with more medicine changes in medical wards | NA | 88% of errors assessed as minor or potentially troublesome; 1.8% may result readmission | NA | NA |
| Grimes et al, 2008 | Ireland Cardiology | NA | Errors in 65.5% patients or in 10.8% per prescribed item | NA | 53% moderate harm; 47% none or minor harm. | NA | NA |
| Witherington et al, 2008 | UK elderly | 62% no FL when patient readmitted to hospital | 66% incomplete for medicine changes | NA | ⇔ | NA | NA |
⇔, communication error alone not responsible for patient harm; FL, final letter; GP, general practitioner; NA, not assessed.