Author, year | Country | Setting | Aim | Design (study type) | Outcome measures | Sample size | Statistical analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sexton et al, 2000 | UK | UK survey | To assess hospital pharmacy service provision for hospital discharge | Postal survey of UK Chief Pharmacists | Grade of staff preparing IDLs; communication method; format of communication | 153/222 (73.4%) | Significance not assessed Percentage response |
Wilson et al, 2001 | Australia | Medical, surgical, elderly, gynaecology and paediatric from one hospital | To assess information accuracy and GP receipt time of hospital IDLs, and GP opinion of the process | Retrospective audit; semi structured GP interviews | Receipt time; information content; accuracy of medicine information; GP opinions | 569 (5% sample) of patients 20 GPs | Significance not assessed Percentage response Extrapolated data |
Foster et al, 2002 | UK | Patients discharged from hospital to 4 GP practices (35 000 patients) | To assess information content of IDLs and receipt time of IDLs by GP surgeries | Retrospective audit SIGN 5 (Sign 5 superseded by SIGN 128) | Receipt time; information content | 244 IDLs (28 days) | Significance not assessed Percentage response |
Pillai et al, 2004 | UK | GPs in one Scottish Health Board area | To assess GP opinion about quality and accuracy of electronic IDLs | Postal survey GPs | Information content; number of communications; GP opinions | 28/40 (70%) receiving electronic version; 67/96 (70%) will receive electronic version in future | Significance not assessed Percentage response |
McMillan et al, 2006 | New Zealand | Medical, surgical patients from one hospital | To assess medicine error frequency and type on IDLs | Retrospective audit | Accuracy of medicine information; potential patient harm | 100 medical 100 surgical | Not described 95% CI and p used to discuss results |
Alderton and Callen, 2007 | Australia | General medical, elderly wards, 75 bed hospital | To assess GP opinion regarding information quality and receipt time of electronic IDLs | GP survey | Receipt time; Information content; GP opinion | 54/85 (64%) | Significance not assessed Percentage response |
Scullard et al, 2007 | UK | Hospital type not stated | To assess information content of traditional handwritten IDLs and typed final letters (FLs) with an electronic summary alone using SIGN guideline criteria | Retrospective audit; GP survey | Information content and accuracy; GP opinions | 30 patients | Not described SD and p used to discuss results |
Callen et al, 2008 | Australia | Unknown | To compare handwritten and electronic IDLs for information content and accuracy | Retrospective audit | Information content; accuracy of medicine information | Control 94 (38%) Intervention 151 (62%) | 2×2 table for OR + 95% CI; χ2 analysis p<0.05 significant |
Grimes et al, 2008 | Ireland | Cardiology patients in four medical wards in a teaching hospital | To assess the accuracy of medicine information on discharge documents and to correlate discrepancies with patient harm | Retrospective audit | Accuracy medicine information; potential patient harm | 139 patients | Not described 95% CI |
Witherington et al, 2008 | UK | Elderly patients, one district general hospital | To assess discharge information availability and content for patients readmitted to hospital within 28 days, and if lack of information or content contributed to readmission | Retrospective audit | Information content and availability; accuracy of medicine information; preventable readmissions | 141 patients | χ2 analysis |
Abdel-Qader et al, 2010 | UK | Medical and elderly care patients, one teaching hospital (904 beds) | To assess the number of prescribing errors on e-prescribing discharge prescriptions detected by pharmacists during usual validation practice and to determine error severity. | Retrospective observational interrupted time sequence | Number and type of pharmacist identified prescribing errors; error severity assessment | 1038 patients 7290 prescribed items | χ2 analysis Unpaired t test 95%CI κ inter-rater reliability |
Callen et al, 2010 | Australia | Elderly ward, 78 bed hospital | To compare transcription errors on handwritten and electronic IDLs and assess medicine information in relation to grade of staff preparing document | Retrospective audit | Accuracy of medicine information; potential patient harm | 966 handwritten 842 electronic | Mann– Whitney U test χ2 analysis OR + 95% CI Correlation analysis p<0.05 significant |
Chen et al, 2010 | Australia | Elderly ward, 300 bed teaching hospital | To assess effectiveness of IDL communication by different delivery methods | Blinded RCT; GP survey | Receipt by GP practice within 7 days following hospital discharge; GP opinions | Control 63 RCT 168: email 40, fax 48, post 40, patient 40; GP n=52 | Student's t test χ2 analysis p<0.05 significant Descriptive statistics |
Hammad et al, 2014 | UK | Patients discharged from hospital to one English primary care area (91 GP practices) | To assess information content of IDLs against a recommended minimum dataset and assess compliance with medicine information | Retrospective review of IDLs | Full data set compliance; medicine information compliance; medicine change compliance; legibility | 3444 IDLs from 12 hospitals audited by 84 GP practices | Descriptive statistics General linear model analysis 95% CI |
Yemm et al, 2014 | UK | 600 bed district general hospital 43 GP practices (325 000 patients) | To assess opinion of hospital junior doctors and GPs in relation to discharge letter content | Survey | Ideal receipt time of IDLs; content accuracy assessed by GPs; importance of content and features of IDLs | 36 junior doctors, 42 GPs | Descriptive statistics Fisher's exact test Mann–Whitney U test |
GP, general practitioner; IDL, immediate discharge letter; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SIGN, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.