Gray Steve, Urwin Mike, Woolfrey Sheila, Harrington Barbara, Cox James
Berwick-upon-Tweed, UK.
Qual Prim Care. 2008;16(5):327-34.
Discharge letters were routinely sent to the patient's general practitioner (primary care physician, family physician) by a care of the elderly consultant. In the past (the 'old' system), copies were also sent to the patients, or their carer, as well as other healthcare professionals if necessary, but not routinely to pharmacists.
The consultant's practice changed in March 2005 to a 'new' system and the practice-based pharmacists received copies of discharge letters for patients discharged from the two community hospitals. The service change was audited before and after the consultant's change in practice. The pharmacists (n = 4) and the consultant were interviewed to ascertain their views about the 'old' and 'new' systems, and potential barriers and enablers to their work.
Patients were more likely to get the treatment recommended by the consultant as a result of the change in practice: 83% (34/41) compared to 51% (23/45) of patients had treatment plans in their discharge letters implemented. Consultant recommendations were not fully implemented in 7% after compared to 29% before the change in practice which gave a number needed to treat (NNT) for the intervention of four (95% confidence interval, 3-6). All pharmacists and the consultant were very positive about the change, having found the 'old' system haphazard and unreliable. They also felt patients were more likely to get the treatment recommended by the consultant. This was supported by results from the audit. Pharmacists felt more integrated into their local healthcare team and that the change linked the discharge process in secondary care with the existing pharmacist medication review service in primary care. All felt there would be benefit to the patient and value in extending the scheme, without any adverse increase in workload.
Sending discharge letters to pharmacists working in the practice as well as general practitioners can lead to improvements in co-ordination of care and implementation of consultant recommendations for treatment.
老年病顾问医生会定期将出院小结发送给患者的全科医生(初级保健医生、家庭医生)。在过去(“旧”系统),出院小结副本也会发送给患者或其护理人员,如有必要还会发送给其他医疗保健专业人员,但通常不会发给药剂师。
2005年3月,顾问医生的做法改为“新”系统,社区药房的药剂师会收到两家社区医院出院患者的出院小结副本。在顾问医生改变做法前后,对服务变化进行了审核。对药剂师(n = 4)和顾问医生进行了访谈,以了解他们对“旧”系统和“新”系统的看法,以及工作中的潜在障碍和促进因素。
由于做法的改变,患者更有可能接受顾问医生推荐的治疗:83%(34/41)的患者出院小结中的治疗计划得到实施,而在改变做法之前这一比例为51%(23/45)。改变做法后,7%的顾问医生建议未得到充分实施,而改变做法前这一比例为29%,干预措施的需治疗人数(NNT)为4(95%置信区间,3 - 6)。所有药剂师和顾问医生对这一改变都非常满意,他们认为“旧”系统随意且不可靠。他们还认为患者更有可能接受顾问医生推荐的治疗。审核结果支持了这一点。药剂师感觉自己更好地融入了当地医疗团队,并且这一改变将二级医疗中的出院流程与初级医疗中现有的药剂师药物审查服务联系了起来。所有人都认为这对患者有益,扩大该计划有价值,且不会增加工作量。
将出院小结发送给社区药房的药剂师以及全科医生,可改善护理协调以及顾问医生治疗建议的实施情况。