ArticleBJGP open2024
Improving discharge summaries from hospital with a brief recommendation text box: results from a nationwide survey.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Follow-up pathways, investigation utilisation, and general practitioner communication following acute medical unit assessment: A six-month retrospective service evaluation.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Article
- Do marked discharge summaries with recommendation text boxes enhance patient safety? A nationwide survey.BJGP open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDanish hospital physicians are obliged to mark discharge summaries addressing whether the GP is recommended to follow up the patient, as well as stating suggested follow-up actions in a recommendation text box.
aimTo investigate GPs' experiences with the recommendation text box in discharge summaries. DESIGN &
settingA questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of GPs in Denmark in January 2021.
methodA questionnaire was prepared for GPs based on background material, focus group interviews, and discussions with GPs and hospital physicians. It was subsequently pilot-tested by fellow researchers and GPs, and revised before the survey.
resultsSeventy-two per cent of the GPs surveyed 'totally agree' or 'partly agree' that the recommendation text box is easy to find. In addition, our results show significant differences on how difficult the recommendation box is to find on different software. Sixty-three per cent 'totally agree' or 'partly agree' that the recommendation text box provides brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up.
conclusionGPs generally find that the recommendation text box provides them with brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up. In addition, the software used by the GPs has a significant influence on how the recommendation text box is to find.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.