ArticleCureus2025
Improving Discharge Summary Follow-Up Documentation in a Major Trauma Center: A Two-Cycle Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionDischarge summaries are critical for continuity of care, yet they often lack key information. Inadequate discharge documentation can lead to adverse events, medication errors, and poor follow-up of pending issues. We aimed to improve the completeness of discharge summaries-particularly follow-up instructions and communication to primary care-in a major trauma center, using standards from the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) Health Informatics Unit 2019 guidance.
methodsWe conducted a two-cycle quality improvement (QI) project in an orthopedic trauma unit of a Level I trauma center. In Cycle 1 (June-July 2025), we audited 33 discharge summaries against RCP-recommended content criteria (e.g. documentation of diagnoses, inpatient management, investigation results, medication changes, follow-up plans, general practitioner (GP) action items, and patient advice). Interventions implemented in August-September 2025 included staff education via posters, interactive teaching sessions, and team presentations to raise awareness of discharge summary standards. Cycle 2 (October 2025) reviewed 21 discharge summaries post-intervention. Following that, we compared documentation rates pre vs post intervention and used Fisher's exact test for categorical improvements and Mann-Whitney U for ordinal scores.
resultsFollow-up documentation improved from 15.6% to 90.0% (absolute difference +74.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) +58% to +91%, p < 0.0001). Complete documentation of new medication indications increased from 9.4% to 50.0% (absolute difference +40.6%, 95% CI +17% to +61%, p = 0.004). Comprehensive patient advice increased from 21.2% to 76.2% (+55.0%, 95% CI +31% to +79%, p = 0.0002).
conclusionTargeted educational interventions led to substantial improvements in discharge summary quality, particularly in follow-up instructions, medication documentation, and patient communication. Ensuring these elements are clearly documented helps bridge the transition from hospital to community care. Our project demonstrates that even in a busy trauma setting, focused efforts can align practice with recommended standards, improving handover to primary care and potentially patient outcomes. Sustained education and periodic audits are recommended to maintain high standards of discharge documentation.
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.