Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29133330›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Improving best practise for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol.

Katharine Weetman, Geoffrey Wong, Emma Scott, Stephanie Schnurr, Jeremy Dale

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. A Rapid Realist Review of Quality Care Process Metrics Implementation in Nursing and Midwifery Practice.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katharine WeetmanDivision of Health Sciences, Primary Care, Warwick Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0377-3933
Geoffrey WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Emma ScottDivision of Health Sciences, Primary Care, Warwick Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Stephanie SchnurrCentre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Jeremy DaleDivision of Health Sciences, Primary Care, Warwick Health Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9256-3553

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDischarge documents are important for transferring information from hospitals to the referring clinician; in the UK and many countries, this is often the patient's general practitioner or family physician. However, patients may or may not receive their discharge letters, and whether patients should routinely receive discharge letters remains unclear. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will consolidate evidence on patients receiving discharge letters through the theory-driven approach of a realist review.The review will be conducted systematically and seek to explain how, why, for whom and in what contexts does this practice 'work'. The review will specifically explore whether there ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical review is not required. The resulting programme theory is anticipated to explain how the intervention of patients receiving written discharge communication may work in practice, for whom and in what contexts; this will inform best practice of patients receiving discharge communication. The review findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations and discussions with relevant organisations and stakeholders. While the review will be from the perspective of the UK NHS, its findings should be relevant to other healthcare systems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069863.

Indexed as

Correspondence as TopicPatient DischargeResearch DesignCommunicationHumansReview Literature as Topiccommunicationdischarge letterhospital dischargepatient informationrealist review

Identifiers

PMID29133330
PMCPMC5695342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.