Shahid A, Sept B, Kupsch S, Brundin-Mather R, Piskulic D, Soo A, Grant C, Leigh JP, Fiest KM, Stelfox HT. Development and pilot implementation of a patient-oriented discharge summary for critically Ill patients.
World J Crit Care Med 2022;
11:255-268. [PMID:
36051938 PMCID:
PMC9305680 DOI:
10.5492/wjccm.v11.i4.255]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Revised: 05/06/2022] [Accepted: 06/18/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Patients leaving the intensive care unit (ICU) often experience gaps in care due to deficiencies in discharge communication, leaving them vulnerable to increased stress, adverse events, readmission to ICU, and death. To facilitate discharge communication, written summaries have been implemented to provide patients and their families with information on medications, activity and diet restrictions, follow-up appointments, symptoms to expect, and who to call if there are questions. While written discharge summaries for patients and their families are utilized frequently in surgical, rehabilitation, and pediatric settings, few have been utilized in ICU settings.
AIM
To develop an ICU specific patient-oriented discharge summary tool (PODS-ICU), and pilot test the tool to determine acceptability and feasibility.
METHODS
Patient-partners (i.e., individuals with lived experience as an ICU patient or family member of an ICU patient), ICU clinicians (i.e., physicians, nurses), and researchers met to discuss ICU patients’ specific informational needs and design the PODS-ICU through several cycles of discussion and iterative revisions. Research team nurses piloted the PODS-ICU with patient and family participants in two ICUs in Calgary, Canada. Follow-up surveys on the PODS-ICU and its impact on discharge were administered to patients, family participants, and ICU nurses.
RESULTS
Most participants felt that their discharge from the ICU was good or better (n = 13; 87.0%), and some (n = 9; 60.0%) participants reported a good understanding of why the patient was in ICU. Most participants (n = 12; 80.0%) reported that they understood ICU events and impacts on the patient’s health. While many patients and family participants indicated the PODS-ICU was informative and useful, ICU nurses reported that the PODS-ICU was “not reasonable” in their daily clinical workflow due to “time constraint”.
CONCLUSION
The PODS-ICU tool provides patients and their families with essential information as they discharge from the ICU. This tool has the potential to engage and empower patients and their families in ensuring continuity of care beyond ICU discharge. However, the PODS-ICU requires pairing with earlier discharge practices and integration with electronic clinical information systems to fit better into the clinical workflow for ICU nurses. Further refinement and testing of the PODS-ICU tool in diverse critical care settings is needed to better assess its feasibility and its effects on patient health outcomes.
Collapse