Dictated versus database-generated discharge summaries: a randomized clinical trial

C van Walraven, A Laupacis, R Seth, G Wells, C van Walraven, A Laupacis, R Seth, G Wells

Abstract

Background: Hospital discharge summaries communicate information necessary for continuing patient care. They are most commonly generated by voice dictation and are often of poor quality. The objective of this study was to compare discharge summaries created by voice dictation with those generated from a clinical database.

Methods: A randomized clinical trial was performed in which discharge summaries for patients discharged from a general internal medicine service at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Ottawa were created by voice dictation (151 patients) or from a database (142 patients). Patients had been admitted between September 1996 and June 1997. The trial was preceded by a baseline cohort study in which all summaries were created by dictation. For the database group, information on forms completed by housestaff was entered into a database and collated into a discharge summary. For the dictation group, housestaff dictated narrative letters. The proportion of patients for whom a summary was generated within 4 weeks of discharge was recorded. Physicians receiving the summary rated its quality, completeness, organization and timeliness on a 100-mm visual analogue scale. Housestaff preference was also determined.

Results: Patients in the database group and the dictation group were similar. A summary was much more likely to be generated within 4 weeks of discharge for patients in the database group than for those in the dictation group (113 [79.6%] v. 86 [57.0%]; p < 0.001). Summary quality was similar (mean rating 72.7 [standard deviation (SD) 19.3] v. 74.9 [SD 16.6]), as were assessments of completeness (73.4 [SD 19.8] v. 78.2 [SD 14.9]), organization (77.4 [SD 16.3] v. 79.3 [SD 17.2]) and timeliness (70.3 [SD 21.9] v. 66.2 [SD 25.6]). Many information items of interest were more likely to be included in the database-generated summaries. The database system created summaries faster and was preferred by housestaff. Dictated summaries in the baseline and randomized studies were similar, which indicated that the control group was not substantially different from the baseline cohort.

Interpretation: The database system significantly increased the likelihood that a discharge summary was created. Housestaff preferred the database system for summary generation. Physicians thought that the quality of summaries generated by the 2 methods was similar. The use of computer databases to create hospital discharge summaries is promising and merits further study and refinement.

References

    1. Am J Med Qual. 1999 Jul-Aug;14(4):160-9
    1. BMJ. 1988 Dec 10;297(6662):1504-6
    1. Br Med J. 1974 Nov 23;4(5942):456-9
    1. Br Med J. 1975 Nov 22;4(5994):443-6
    1. Methods Inf Med. 1976 Jul;15(3):141-4
    1. Methods Inf Med. 1977 Oct;16(4):199-204
    1. Cancer Treat Rep. 1978 Jul;62(7):1037-40
    1. J Pediatr. 1978 Sep;93(3):519-23
    1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1979 Jan;60(1):25-9
    1. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1979 Jun;7(6):623-4
    1. Mil Med. 1982 Dec;147(12):1054-5
    1. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983 Mar;90(3):227-31
    1. Pediatrics. 1985 Aug;76(2):269-73
    1. Med Inform (Lond). 1985 Jul-Sep;10(3):259-66
    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Mar 22;292(6523):816-8
    1. Health Trends. 1986 Feb;18(1):12-4
    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Nov 15;293(6557):1283-4
    1. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Dec 12;295(6612):1523-5
    1. J Med Educ. 1988 May;63(5):407-9
    1. Med J Aust. 1988 Jul 18;149(2):70-4
    1. BMJ. 1988 Jul 2;297(6640):28-9
    1. Can Fam Physician. 1998 Jan;44:62-9
    1. BMJ. 1989 Feb 11;298(6670):362-3
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;73(5 Pt 1):803-7
    1. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1990 Oct 10;110(24):3132-5
    1. Arch Dis Child. 1991 Apr;66(4 Spec No):433-6
    1. Pediatrics. 1992 Jan;89(1):62-6
    1. J Soc Health Syst. 1991;3(1):67-90
    1. J Med Syst. 1991 Jun;15(3):237-47
    1. West Engl Med J. 1991 Jun;106(2):40-1, 55
    1. Indian Pediatr. 1992 Feb;29(2):173-80
    1. Health Bull (Edinb). 1992 May;50(3):219-22
    1. Int J Clin Monit Comput. 1992;9(2):71-84
    1. Med J Aust. 1992 Sep 21;157(6):380-2
    1. BMJ. 1993 Jan 23;306(6872):247
    1. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1993 Mar;75(2):96-9
    1. Am J Dis Child. 1993 Sep;147(9):986-8
    1. BMJ. 1993 Oct 23;307(6911):1044
    1. CMAJ. 1995 May 1;152(9):1437-42
    1. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995 Jul-Aug;29(4):307-10
    1. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1995 Dec;13(4):287-93
    1. Br J Surg. 1996 Jun;83(6):788-90
    1. N Engl J Med. 1997 Oct 16;337(16):1159-61

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel