评估澳大利亚出院总结屏幕显示国家指南的实施情况。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Australian Health Review Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1071/AH22248
Masarrat Mahera, Hamish Rodda, Nick Monypenny, Paul Wembridge
{"title":"评估澳大利亚出院总结屏幕显示国家指南的实施情况。","authors":"Masarrat Mahera,&nbsp;Hamish Rodda,&nbsp;Nick Monypenny,&nbsp;Paul Wembridge","doi":"10.1071/AH22248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in the inclusion of pertinent information on electronic discharge summaries (eDS) after implementation of a revised template and electronic medical record (EMR) workflow. Methods A retrospective medical record audit of eDS at three metropolitan hospitals was undertaken for adult inpatient encounters in June 2021 (pre-intervention, n  = 100) and June 2022 (post-intervention, n  = 100). The eDS were evaluated against 16 components listed in the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries. Nine components were further broken down to between two and 11 sub-components. Sub-analysis compared a hospital with full EMR to pooled results from hospitals with hybrid EMRs. Components and sub-components were evaluated for inclusion only; accuracy or relevance of the information was not assessed. Results Inclusion of three out of 16 components (presentation details: 47% vs 62%, problems and diagnosis: 61% vs 86% and recipient details: 82% vs 93%) and eight out of 36 sub-components (discharge destination, principal diagnosis, history of presenting complaint, infection risk, pressure injury, screening and/or diagnosis of delirium and GP phone number and address) was higher in the post-intervention group (all P  < 0.05). Reduced eDS information inclusion in the post-intervention group was observed for discharge date and falls risk only (both P  < 0.05). Reporting of falls history decreased at the hospital with full EMR (71% vs 20% P  < 0.001) but not at hospitals utilising hybrid EMRs (24% vs 30% P  = 0.5). Conclusion The intervention was associated with improved inclusion of pertinent information as described in the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":55425,"journal":{"name":"Australian Health Review","volume":" ","pages":"535-544"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating an implementation of the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries.\",\"authors\":\"Masarrat Mahera,&nbsp;Hamish Rodda,&nbsp;Nick Monypenny,&nbsp;Paul Wembridge\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/AH22248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in the inclusion of pertinent information on electronic discharge summaries (eDS) after implementation of a revised template and electronic medical record (EMR) workflow. Methods A retrospective medical record audit of eDS at three metropolitan hospitals was undertaken for adult inpatient encounters in June 2021 (pre-intervention, n  = 100) and June 2022 (post-intervention, n  = 100). The eDS were evaluated against 16 components listed in the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries. Nine components were further broken down to between two and 11 sub-components. Sub-analysis compared a hospital with full EMR to pooled results from hospitals with hybrid EMRs. Components and sub-components were evaluated for inclusion only; accuracy or relevance of the information was not assessed. Results Inclusion of three out of 16 components (presentation details: 47% vs 62%, problems and diagnosis: 61% vs 86% and recipient details: 82% vs 93%) and eight out of 36 sub-components (discharge destination, principal diagnosis, history of presenting complaint, infection risk, pressure injury, screening and/or diagnosis of delirium and GP phone number and address) was higher in the post-intervention group (all P  < 0.05). Reduced eDS information inclusion in the post-intervention group was observed for discharge date and falls risk only (both P  < 0.05). Reporting of falls history decreased at the hospital with full EMR (71% vs 20% P  < 0.001) but not at hospitals utilising hybrid EMRs (24% vs 30% P  = 0.5). Conclusion The intervention was associated with improved inclusion of pertinent information as described in the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Health Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"535-544\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Health Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22248\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Health Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH22248","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究的目的是评估在实施修订后的模板和电子病历(EMR)工作流程后,电子出院摘要(eDS)中相关信息的纳入变化。方法对2021年6月三家大都市医院的成人住院患者的eDS进行回顾性医疗记录审计(干预前 = 100)和2022年6月(干预后,n = 100)。根据《澳大利亚出院总结屏幕显示指南》中列出的16种成分对eDS进行评估。9个组成部分被进一步分解为2至11个子组成部分。子分析将一家拥有完整电子病历的医院与拥有混合电子病历医院的汇总结果进行了比较。仅评估了成分和子成分是否包含;未评估信息的准确性或相关性。结果16个成分中的3个成分(表现细节:47%对62%,问题和诊断:61%对86%,接受者细节:82%对93%)和36个子成分中的8个成分(出院目的地、主要诊断、表现主诉史、感染风险、压力损伤、谵妄筛查和/或诊断以及全科医生电话号码和地址)在干预后组(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluating an implementation of the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries.

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in the inclusion of pertinent information on electronic discharge summaries (eDS) after implementation of a revised template and electronic medical record (EMR) workflow. Methods A retrospective medical record audit of eDS at three metropolitan hospitals was undertaken for adult inpatient encounters in June 2021 (pre-intervention, n  = 100) and June 2022 (post-intervention, n  = 100). The eDS were evaluated against 16 components listed in the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries. Nine components were further broken down to between two and 11 sub-components. Sub-analysis compared a hospital with full EMR to pooled results from hospitals with hybrid EMRs. Components and sub-components were evaluated for inclusion only; accuracy or relevance of the information was not assessed. Results Inclusion of three out of 16 components (presentation details: 47% vs 62%, problems and diagnosis: 61% vs 86% and recipient details: 82% vs 93%) and eight out of 36 sub-components (discharge destination, principal diagnosis, history of presenting complaint, infection risk, pressure injury, screening and/or diagnosis of delirium and GP phone number and address) was higher in the post-intervention group (all P  < 0.05). Reduced eDS information inclusion in the post-intervention group was observed for discharge date and falls risk only (both P  < 0.05). Reporting of falls history decreased at the hospital with full EMR (71% vs 20% P  < 0.001) but not at hospitals utilising hybrid EMRs (24% vs 30% P  = 0.5). Conclusion The intervention was associated with improved inclusion of pertinent information as described in the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Health Review
Australian Health Review 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
134
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australian Health Review is an international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes contributions on all aspects of health policy, management and governance; healthcare delivery systems; workforce; health financing; and other matters of interest to those working in health care. In addition to analyses and commentary, the journal publishes original research from practitioners – managers and clinicians – and reports of breakthrough projects that demonstrate better ways of delivering care. Australian Health Review explores major national and international health issues and questions, enabling health professionals to keep their fingers on the pulse of the nation’s health decisions and to know what the most influential commentators and decision makers are thinking. Australian Health Review is a valuable resource for managers, policy makers and clinical staff in health organisations, including government departments, hospitals, community centres and aged-care facilities, as well as anyone with an interest in the health industry. Australian Health Review is published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association.
期刊最新文献
Implementation of physiotherapy-led lung ultrasound in the intensive care unit. Clinical governance implications of a Victorian coronial finding regarding contrast-related anaphylaxis for health services and private providers of radiology services. Implementation of an in-reach rehabilitation program can increase the rate of discharge home from acute hospital care. Establishment of the first Australian public and health-professional palliative care advice service: exploring caller needs and gaps in care. Evaluating an implementation of the Australian National Guidelines for the On-Screen Display of Discharge Summaries.
×
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