Observational studyPloS one2025
Unveiling the gaps: A comprehensive, equity-focused observational examination of Emergency Department discharge.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. 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
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrior work has shown that Emergency Department (ED) discharge instructions are often incomplete and poorly comprehended , leading to adverse events. Given the critical importance of effectively communicating ED discharge instructions, we performed a comprehensive evaluation of current adult ED discharge practices at two hospitals compared to a conceptual composite gold standard.
methodsThis prospective observational study was conducted at two large academic urban EDs. ED patients were purposively selected for observation to ensure diverse representation including non-English language preferring (NELP) patients. Research Assistants (RAs) observed all provider-patient interactions throughout the patient's ED encounter, documenting all discharge-related discussions. Verbal discharge and discharge documentation content were compared to a conceptual "gold-standard" checklist developed from consensus national guidelines.
resultsBetween September 2023 to March 2024, a total of 175 adult patient ED courses were observed. The majority of verbal communication regarding ED discharge included ED diagnosis (87%), ED diagnostic results (87%), medications (81%) and follow-up plan (78%). Only half (54%) included ED return precautions. Discharge documentation content mirrored these findings, except for ED diagnostic results (69%) and ED return precautions (81%). Assessment of comprehension occurred during only 53% of discharges, with 46% of patients having the opportunity to ask follow-up questions. For NELP patients, 12% of verbal discharges and 55% of discharge documentation were not in the patients' preferred language.
conclusionMuch of the recommended ED discharge content was provided to the patient. Divergent content gaps identified across verbal discharge and discharge documentation support the pragmatic value of bimodal discharge processes. Given the demonstrated impact of discharge instruction comprehension on improving patient adherence, important foci for future process improvement includes assessing patient comprehension and exploring feasible solutions to facilitate the use of preferred language discharge documentation 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.