ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2024
Improving Patient Understanding of Emergency Department Discharge Instructions.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Scoping Review of Adult Emergency Department Discharge Interventions.The western journal of emergency medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Previous studies have shown that patients in the emergency department (ED) are frequently given incomplete discharge instructions that are written at least four grade levels above the recommended sixth-grade reading level, leading to poor understanding. Our aims in this study were to implement standardized discharge instructions containing six key components written at a more appropriate reading level for common emergency department (ED) diagnoses to improve patient understanding. Methods: We conducted this study in a 20-bed ED at an urban Veteran's Administration hospital. Data was collected via in-person patient and clinician interviews. Patient interviews were conducted after patients received their discharge instructions. We compared patient responses to clinician responses and marked them as incorrect, partially correct, or correct with a score of 0, 0.5, or 1, respectively. The maximum possible score for each interview was six. Six key components of discharge instructions were asked about: diagnosis; new medications; at-home care; duration of illness; reasons to return; and follow-up. There were 25 patients in the pre-intervention group and 20 in the intervention group with the standardized set of instructions. We performed a Mann-Whitney U test on the total interview scores in the control and intervention groups and conducted a sub-analysis on the individual scores for each of the six key components. Results: The patients in the intervention demonstrated a statistically significant increase in patient-clinician correlation when compared to the patients in the pre-intervention group overall ( Conclusion: Patients who received the standardized discharge instructions had improved understanding of their discharge instructions. Future opportunities extending off this pilot study include expanding the number of diagnoses for which standardized instructions are used and investigating patient-centered outcomes related to these instructions.
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.