ArticleBMC health services research2025
Evaluating the quality and equity of patient hospital discharge instructions.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Postdischarge Intervention Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Assessment of Artificial Intelligence-based Translation Tools for Emergency Department Discharge Instructions.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the accuracy and safety of machine translation of patient-specific discharge instructions: a comparative analysis.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Training a Bilingual Artificial Intelligence Model on Pediatric Orthopaedic Resources to Enhance the Readability of Patient Education Materials.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Language Barriers in the Delivery of Musculoskeletal Care and Future Directions.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence vs Professionally Translated Discharge Instructions.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWritten discharge instructions improve patient understanding and self-management after hospitalization. While a small number of studies have evaluated the quality of hospital discharge instructions, none have focused on patients with a non-English language preference (NELP) or looked for potential disparities. Our goal was to compare the quality of patient discharge instructions between those with English language preference and NELP, including whether instructions were in the patient's preferred language, included all content domains recommended by professional groups, and followed best practices for health literacy.
methodsWe analyzed 200 discharge records from inpatient adult medicine discharges at one hospital across a range of diagnoses using case matching by diagnosis and age to construct an English and NELP cohort (each n = 100). We assessed the percentage of discharge instructions written in the patient's preferred language, measured word count, and calculated readability scores. Lastly, two individual raters used a scale-the Quality of Discharge Instructions-Inpatient (QDI-I) scale-to rate them across six domains of content quality.
resultsOnly 8% of patients with NELP received discharge instructions in their preferred language compared to 100% in the English cohort (p < 0.001). The mean overall QDI-I score was similar for the NELP and English cohorts (71.1% of perfect versus 71.3% of perfect, p = 0.92), but the domain of return precautions was inferior among those with NELP (80.5% of perfect vs. 88.8% of perfect, p = 0.013). Instructions in both groups were written at an eighth- to ninth-grade reading level (age 13-15). DISCUSSION: We found disparities in quality of written discharge instructions for patients with NELP. Recommended next steps include replication of our methods across health systems and larger sample sizes to examine differences between non-English language groups.
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.