ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025
What do readers need? Qualitative requirements of medical discharge summaries from the recipients' perspective.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Diagnosis decoded: a taxonomy and natural language processing analysis of the diagnosis section in German hospital discharge summaries.Health care management science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDischarge summaries (DSs) are the primary communication tools in clinical medicine. The transfer of information and plans is essential to ensure consistent patient safety and continuity of care. Therefore, DSs play a key role in population health. However, the overall quality of DSs is considered deficient, and there is a notable lack of scientific knowledge and research in this field, particularly regarding the needs of physicians as the primary recipients of DSs and key providers of ongoing patient care. The purpose of this study was to explore their requirements concerning the content, structure, and processing of DSs.
methodsA total of 159 outpatient primary care physicians (general practitioners, GPs) and specialists who refer patients to hospitals for various conditions were contacted across Germany using mixed sampling methods combining convenience, quota, and theory-driven sampling. Of these, 106 (66.67%) participated in telephone interviews. The interviews included nine open-ended questions, analyzed using Mayring's qualitative content analysis, and a 43-item questionnaire, evaluated quantitatively with descriptive statistical methods to assess DS characteristics.
resultsQuantitative analysis revealed that recipients rated the prompt arrival of DSs, a clear treatment and diagnostic plan, and a coherent rationale as the most important requirements. The least important elements were newsletter-style content, patient contact information, patient ethnicity, and hospital logos or awards. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses identified similar priorities and challenges in DS content and structure. Sending a diagnosis list was considered a top priority by all physicians. While GPs placed high importance on diagnoses, treatment plans, and medication changes, specialists prioritized a logical line of reasoning.
conclusionThis recipient-focused study highlighted specific areas for improvement in the content, structure, and delivery of DSs. Tailoring DS formats to the distinct needs of GPs and specialists has the potential to enhance their overall quality and utility. Ultimately, optimizing DSs may strengthen population health outcomes by improving care transitions, reducing adverse events, and supporting effective outpatient management across the healthcare system.
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.