↓ Skip to main content

Processing of discharge summaries in general practice: a retrospective record review

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Processing of discharge summaries in general practice: a retrospective record review
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x697877
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Ann Spencer, Simon Edward Frank Spencer, Sarah Rodgers, Stephen M Campbell, Anthony John Avery

Abstract

There is a need for greater understanding of the epidemiology of primary care patient safety in order to generate solutions to prevent future harm. To estimate the rate of failures in processing actions requested in hospital discharge summaries, and to determine factors associated with these failures. The authors undertook a retrospective records review. The study population was emergency admissions for patients aged ≥75 years, drawn from 10 practices in three areas of England. One GP researcher reviewed the records for 300 patients after hospital discharge to determine the rate of compliance with actions requested in the discharge summary, and to estimate the rate of associated harm from non-compliance. In cases where GPs documented decision-making contrary to what was requested, these instances did not constitute failures. Data were also collected on time taken to process discharge communications. There were failures in processing actions requested in 46% (112/246) of discharge summaries (95% confidence interval [CI] = 39 to 52%). Medications changes were not made in 17% (124/750) of requests (95% CI = 14 to 19%). Tests were not completed for 26% of requests (95% CI = 16 to 35%), and 27% of requested follow-ups were not arranged (95% CI = 20 to 33%). The harm rate associated with these failures was 8%. Increased risk of failure to process test requests was significantly associated with the type of clinical IT system, and male patients. Failures occurred in the processing of requested actions in almost half of all discharge summaries, and with all types of action requested. Associated harms were uncommon and most were of moderate severity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 22 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,175,738
of 25,376,589 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#543
of 4,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,765
of 334,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#16
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,589 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.