The quality of communication between hospitals and general practitioners: An assessment

P BOLTON MB, BS, DRACOG, Grad Dip Comp st, MACS, PCP, FRACGP, M MIRA MB, BS, PhD, P KENNEDY MB, BS, FRACP, M MOSES LAHRA BA
{"title":"The quality of communication between hospitals and general practitioners: An assessment","authors":"P BOLTON MB, BS, DRACOG, Grad Dip Comp st, MACS, PCP, FRACGP,&nbsp;M MIRA MB, BS, PhD,&nbsp;P KENNEDY MB, BS, FRACP,&nbsp;M MOSES LAHRA BA","doi":"10.1046/j.1440-1762.1998.00281.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The objective of this study was to assess the quality of communications between hospitals and general practitioners (GPs). The proportion of medical records in which the patient’s general practitioner (GP) was identified, the accuracy of medications recorded in the discharge summary, the proportion of GPs who received discharge summaries, and the timeliness of receipt of discharge summaries were all evaluated. Discussions were held with all stakeholders, the literature was reviewed and GPs were surveyed to identify potential measures of quality. These were then trialled to assess their utility and practicability. Timeliness, issues that required follow-up and treatment provided in hospital were of greatest importance to general practitioners. The GP’s name was recorded in 88% of audited records. Few inaccuracies were detected in the medications recorded in the discharge summaries, and GPs received 77% of discharge summaries. Methods similar to those used in this study might be broadly applied to improve the quality of discharge communication throughout Australia.</p>","PeriodicalId":79407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of quality in clinical practice","volume":"18 4","pages":"241-247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1440-1762.1998.00281.x","citationCount":"80","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of quality in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1762.1998.00281.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 80

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the quality of communications between hospitals and general practitioners (GPs). The proportion of medical records in which the patient’s general practitioner (GP) was identified, the accuracy of medications recorded in the discharge summary, the proportion of GPs who received discharge summaries, and the timeliness of receipt of discharge summaries were all evaluated. Discussions were held with all stakeholders, the literature was reviewed and GPs were surveyed to identify potential measures of quality. These were then trialled to assess their utility and practicability. Timeliness, issues that required follow-up and treatment provided in hospital were of greatest importance to general practitioners. The GP’s name was recorded in 88% of audited records. Few inaccuracies were detected in the medications recorded in the discharge summaries, and GPs received 77% of discharge summaries. Methods similar to those used in this study might be broadly applied to improve the quality of discharge communication throughout Australia.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医院与全科医生之间的沟通质量:评估
本研究的目的是评估医院与全科医生(gp)之间的沟通质量。评估病历中识别患者全科医生(GP)的比例、出院摘要中记录药物的准确性、收到出院摘要的全科医生比例以及收到出院摘要的及时性。与所有利益相关者进行了讨论,对文献进行了审查,并对全科医生进行了调查,以确定潜在的质量措施。然后对它们进行试验,以评估它们的效用和实用性。对于全科医生来说,及时性、需要随访的问题和医院提供的治疗是最重要的。全科医生的名字被记录在88%的审计记录中。出院总结中记录的药物很少被发现不准确,全科医生接受了77%的出院总结。与本研究中使用的方法类似,可以广泛应用于提高整个澳大利亚的出院沟通质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health technology assessment. Notices Letters to the Editor Notices Author index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1