ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Enhancing patient flow through standardised discharge pathways for neurology and medicine services.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPoor discharge planning impairs hospital throughput, adds to the financial strain on health systems and diminishes patient and provider satisfaction. We developed consensus-based discharge criteria coupled with a standardised discharge pathway for four presenting diagnoses and tracked their effect on discharge timing and length of stay (LOS).
methodsMedical readiness for discharge criteria for patients diagnosed with transient ischaemic attack, seizure, demyelinating disease or syncope were generated by expert consensus at our institution. A standardised discharge pathway was developed for eligible patients based on discussions with stakeholders and staff. Discharge timing and readmissions were tracked for 6 months pre-intervention and 12 months post-intervention (divided into 6 months of implementation and post-implementation periods). The primary outcome was a discharge time of ≤2 hours for 60% of patients during the implementation period. Secondary outcomes included reduced time to discharge (TTD) and LOS compared with the pre-intervention period.
results318 total patient visits were included across the baseline, implementation and post-implementation periods. Median TTD improved from 171 min at baseline to 88 and 92 min, respectively, during the implementation and post-implementation periods. Median LOS similarly decreased from 94 hours to 35 and 30 hours, respectively. All primary and secondary outcomes were achieved during the implementation period and sustained post-implementation. The rate of emergency department visits and hospital readmissions within 30 days remained low (~1.5%) post-intervention. Additionally, most providers reported that the intervention improved clinical workflow.
conclusionsThis standardised discharge framework improved discharge efficiency for patients with four common diagnoses during an 18-month quality improvement study. The framework and its implementation are highly scalable, and similar systems-level approaches should be considered by hospitals to improve throughput.
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.