ArticleBMC health services research2025
After-visit and discharge summaries: a scoping review of stakeholder perspectives and experiences.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing AI-Generated, Clinician-Edited to Human-Generated After-Visit Summaries.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Article
- Building capacity for patient advocacy in liver health: a cross-country qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Defining advocacy in public health: a scoping review to inform policy, training, and equity-oriented action.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAfter-Visit Summary (AVS) and Discharge Summary (DS) are essential tools for patient-centered care, aiming to improve communication, enhance engagement, and provide clear, actionable health information. While AVS and DS have been studied in various contexts, no scoping review has systematically explored their usage, perceptions, and outcomes from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Despite their potential, challenges such as usability issues, design variability, and technological constraints often limit their effectiveness. By mapping existing evidence, this review aims to explore usage, attitudes, and outcomes of AVS and DS from the stakeholders’ perspectives, identifying critical barriers and facilitators, and highlighting areas for improvement to guide future implementation and optimization of these tools.
methodsThe scoping review was conducted following JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, with additional screening of reference lists. Studies involving patients, caregivers, or healthcare providers and examining AVS and DS implementation in any healthcare setting were included.
resultsSeventy-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were conducted in the USA (47.9%), utilized quantitative methods (54.8%) and focused on DS implementation (71.2%). Key findings showed that AVS and DS improve communication, patient engagement, and care transitions. Patients appreciated clear and concise summaries, while healthcare providers identified challenges with workflow integration and time constraints. Barriers included technical language, inconsistent formatting, and limited EHR integration. Facilitators such as simplified language, tailored content, and stakeholder involvement improved usability and effectiveness. Outcomes reported included better patient understanding of their condition, improved adherence to medical advice and treatment plans, and enhanced care continuity during transitions.
conclusionsThis scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of stakeholder perspective on AVS and DS. While these tools are essential for enhancing communication and empowering patients, their efficacy hinges on overcoming challenges related to usability and standardization. By identifying key barriers and opportunities, our findings offer a foundation for refining AVS and DS through stakeholder-driven design, policy development, and technological advancements. Participatory design, research advancements, and technology integration are key to enhancing their usability and impact across healthcare settings.
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.