We updated the design of this site on September 25th. Learn more.
Show more
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

Value of Technology to Transfer Discharge Information

This study has been completed.
Sponsor:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00101868
First Posted: January 17, 2005
Last Update Posted: May 15, 2012
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
Collaborator:
University of Illinois at Chicago
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
james f. graumlich, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
  Purpose
The transition from hospital to home is a high-risk period in a patient's illness. Poor communication between healthcare providers at hospital discharge is common and contributes to adverse events affecting patients after discharge. The importance of good communication at discharge will increase as more primary care providers delegate inpatient care to hospitalists. Any process that improves information transfer among providers at discharge might improve the health and safety of patients discharged from U.S. hospitals each year, and to appreciably reduce unnecessary healthcare expenditures. Information transfer among healthcare providers and their patients can be undermined because of inaccuracies, omissions, illegibility, logistical failure (e.g., information is never delivered), and delays in generation (i.e., dictation or transcription) or transmission. Root causes include recall error, increased physician workloads, interface failures (e.g., physician-clerical) and poor training of physicians in the discharge process. Many of the deficiencies in the current process of information transfer at hospital discharge could be effectively addressed by the application of information technology. The proposed study will measure the value of a software application to facilitate information transfer at hospital discharge. The study is designed to compare the benefits of discharge health information technology versus usual care in high-risk patients recently discharged from acute care hospitalization. The design is a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. The outcomes are readmission within 6 months, adverse events, and effectiveness and satisfaction with the discharge process from the patient and physician perspectives. The cost outcome is the physician time required to use the discharge software.

Condition Intervention
Information Dissemination Interprofessional Relations Device: Discharge communication software Other: Usual care discharge process

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single (Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
Official Title: Value of Technology to Transfer Discharge Information

Resource links provided by NLM:


Further study details as provided by james f. graumlich, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ):

Primary Outcome Measures:
  • Hospital Readmission, at Least One [ Time Frame: within 6 months after discharge ]
    Number of participants with at least one readmission within 6 months after discharge from index hospital visit


Secondary Outcome Measures:
  • Patients' Perception of Discharge Process, Effectiveness, Satisfaction, Preparedness [ Time Frame: 1 week after discharge ]
  • Patients' Perception of Discharge Process, Satisfaction [ Time Frame: 1 week after discharge ]
  • Pharmacist Needed to Clarify the Discharge Prescription [ Time Frame: 1 day after discharge ]
  • Pharmacist's Satisfaction With Discharge Prescription [ Time Frame: 1 day after discharge ]
  • At Least One Adverse Event Within One Month After Discharge [ Time Frame: 1 month after discharge ]
    Number of participants with at least one adverse event within one month after discharge

  • Patient's Satisfaction With Drug Information [ Time Frame: 1 week after discharge ]
  • Primary Care Physician's Perception, Effectiveness [ Time Frame: 10 days after discharge ]
  • Primary Care Physician's Perception, Satisfaction [ Time Frame: 10 days after discharge ]
  • Discharge Physician Satisfaction With Discharge Process [ Time Frame: 6 months after using discharge process ]
  • Number of Outpatient Visits [ Time Frame: within 6 months after discharge ]
  • Number of Emergency Department Visits [ Time Frame: within 6 months after discharge ]
    Number of participants with at least one emergency department visit within six months after discharge

  • Physician Time Spent to Complete the Discharge Application [ Time Frame: averaged over 2 years of patient enrollment ]

Enrollment: 631
Study Start Date: December 2004
Study Completion Date: August 2007
Primary Completion Date: August 2007 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Arms Assigned Interventions
Experimental: Discharge communication software
Computerized-Physician-Order-Entry software application to facilitate communication at time of hospital discharge to patients, retail pharmacists, community physicians. Software had required fields, pick lists, standard drug doses, alerts, reminders, online reference information. Software prompted discharging physician to enter pending tests, order tests after discharge. Hospital physicians used software on day of discharge to generate four documents automatically: personalized letter to outpatient physician, legible prescriptions, and legible discharge order
Device: Discharge communication software
Computerized physician order entry software used by discharging physician
Other Names:
  • Discharge assistant
  • Hospital Information Systems
  • Medical Records Systems-Computerized
  • Electronic Discharge Summary
  • Medication Reconciliation
Active Comparator: Usual care discharge process
Hospital physicians and ward nurses completed handwritten discharge forms on the day of discharge. The forms contained blanks for discharge diagnoses, discharge medications, medication instructions, post discharge activities and restrictions, post discharge diet, post discharge diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and appointments. Patients received handwritten copies of the forms, one page of which also included medication instructions and prescriptions
Other: Usual care discharge process
Handwritten
Other Names:
  • Usual care
  • handwritten

  Show Detailed Description

  Eligibility

Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years and older   (Adult, Senior)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Inpatients at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center
  • Discharged by the hospitalist service or other inpatient services
  • High risk for poor post-discharge outcomes defined as probability of readmission (PRA) 0.4 or above

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Less than 18 years old
  • Unwilling or unable to provide written consent
  • Life expectancy less than 6 months
  • Will receive outpatient care from a primary care physician who is the same as the discharging physician
  • Do not speak English or Spanish
  • Not alert and oriented when admitted
  • Do not have telephone for post-discharge contact
  • Do not reside in Central Illinois
  • Will be discharged to a nursing home
  • Previously enrolled as subjects in the trial
  Contacts and Locations
Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00101868


Locations
United States, Illinois
OSF Saint Francis Medical Center
Peoria, Illinois, United States, 61637
Sponsors and Collaborators
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
University of Illinois at Chicago
Investigators
Principal Investigator: James F Graumlich, MD University of Illinois College of Medicine
  More Information

Publications:
Nace GS, Graumlich JF, Aldag JC. Software design to facilitate information transfer at hospital discharge. Inform Prim Care. 2006;14(2):109-19.
Graumlich JF, Novotny NL, Aldag JC. Brief scale measuring patient preparedness for hospital discharge to home: Psychometric properties. J Hosp Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;3(6):446-54. doi: 10.1002/jhm.316.
Graumlich JF, Grimmer-Somers K, Aldag JC. Discharge planning scale: community physicians' perspective. J Hosp Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;3(6):455-64. doi: 10.1002/jhm.371.
Graumlich JF, Novotny NL, Stephen Nace G, Kaushal H, Ibrahim-Ali W, Theivanayagam S, William Scheibel L, Aldag JC. Patient readmissions, emergency visits, and adverse events after software-assisted discharge from hospital: cluster randomized trial. J Hosp Med. 2009 Sep;4(7):E11-9. doi: 10.1002/jhm.469.
Graumlich JF, Novotny NL, Nace GS, Aldag JC. Patient and physician perceptions after software-assisted hospital discharge: cluster randomized trial. J Hosp Med. 2009 Jul;4(6):356-63. doi: 10.1002/jhm.565.
Novotny NL, Anderson MA. Prediction of early readmission in medical inpatients using the Probability of Repeated Admission instrument. Nurs Res. 2008 Nov-Dec;57(6):406-15. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e31818c3e06.
Andersen HE, Schultz-Larsen K, Kreiner S, Forchhammer BH, Eriksen K, Brown A. Can readmission after stroke be prevented? Results of a randomized clinical study: a postdischarge follow-up service for stroke survivors. Stroke. 2000 May;31(5):1038-45.
Anderson GF, Steinberg EP. Hospital readmissions in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 1984 Nov 22;311(21):1349-53.
Shepperd S, Parkes J, McClaren J, Phillips C. Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD000313. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD000313.
Beers MH, Sliwkowski J, Brooks J. Compliance with medication orders among the elderly after hospital discharge. Hosp Formul. 1992 Jul;27(7):720-4.
Brook RH, Appel FA, Avery C, Orman M, Stevenson RL. Effectiveness of inpatient follow-up care. N Engl J Med. 1971 Dec 30;285(27):1509-14.
Burnand B, Kernan WN, Feinstein AR. Indexes and boundaries for "quantitative significance" in statistical decisions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(12):1273-84.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83.
Corrigan JM, Martin JB. Identification of factors associated with hospital readmission and development of a predictive model. Health Serv Res. 1992 Apr;27(1):81-101.
Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;45(6):613-9.
Donner A, Birkett N, Buck C. Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1981 Dec;114(6):906-14.
Donner A, Donald A. Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with the cluster as unit of randomization. Stat Med. 1987 Jan-Feb;6(1):43-52.
Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):416-22.
Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):161-7.
Foster DS, Paterson C, Fairfield G. Evaluation of immediate discharge documents--room for improvement? Scott Med J. 2002 Aug;47(4):77-9.
Grimmer K, Moss J. The development, validity and application of a new instrument to assess the quality of discharge planning activities from the community perspective. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Apr;13(2):109-16.
Hauck WW, Anderson S, Marcus SM. Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials? Control Clin Trials. 1998 Jun;19(3):249-56. Review.
Hedeker D, Gibbons RD. MIXOR: a computer program for mixed-effects ordinal regression analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1996 Mar;49(2):157-76.
Hedeker D, Gibbons RD. MIXREG: a computer program for mixed-effects regression analysis with autocorrelated errors. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1996 May;49(3):229-52.
Hedeker D, Siddiqui O, Hu FB. Random-effects regression analysis of correlated grouped-time survival data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2000 Apr;9(2):161-79.
Heitjan DF. Annotation: what can be done about missing data? Approaches to imputation. Am J Public Health. 1997 Apr;87(4):548-50.
Horne R, Hankins M, Jenkins R. The Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS): a new measurement tool for audit and research. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10(3):135-40.
Hsieh FY. Sample size formulae for intervention studies with the cluster as unit of randomization. Stat Med. 1988 Nov;7(11):1195-201. Erratum in: Stat Med 1997 Jun 15;16(11):1300.
Hunsberger S, Murray D, Davis CE, Fabsitz RR. Imputation strategies for missing data in a school-based multi-centre study: the Pathways study. Stat Med. 2001 Jan 30;20(2):305-16.
Johnson A, Sandford J, Tyndall J. Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD003716. Review.
Kerry SM, Bland JM. Unequal cluster sizes for trials in English and Welsh general practice: implications for sample size calculations. Stat Med. 2001 Feb 15;20(3):377-90.
Kiefe CI, Heudebert G, Box JB, Farmer RM, Michael M, Clancy CM. Compliance with post-hospitalization follow-up visits: rationing by inconvenience? Ethn Dis. 1999 Autumn;9(3):387-95.
Manos PJ, Wu R. The ten point clock test: a quick screen and grading method for cognitive impairment in medical and surgical patients. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1994;24(3):229-44.
Marcantonio ER, McKean S, Goldfinger M, Kleefield S, Yurkofsky M, Brennan TA. Factors associated with unplanned hospital readmission among patients 65 years of age and older in a Medicare managed care plan. Am J Med. 1999 Jul;107(1):13-7.
McInnes E, Mira M, Atkin N, Kennedy P, Cullen J. Can GP input into discharge planning result in better outcomes for the frail aged: results from a randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract. 1999 Jun;16(3):289-93.
Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):423-32. Review.
Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts EA, Janecek E, Domecq C, Greenblatt DJ. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981 Aug;30(2):239-45.
Naylor MD, Brooten D, Campbell R, Jacobsen BS, Mezey MD, Pauly MV, Schwartz JS. Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 1999 Feb 17;281(7):613-20.
Nazareth I, Burton A, Shulman S, Smith P, Haines A, Timberal H. A pharmacy discharge plan for hospitalized elderly patients--a randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing. 2001 Jan;30(1):33-40.
O'Connell EM, Teich JM, Pedraza LA, Thomas D. A comprehensive inpatient discharge system. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996:699-703.
Pacala JT, Boult C, Boult L. Predictive validity of a questionnaire that identifies older persons at risk for hospital admission. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995 Apr;43(4):374-7.
Pacala JT, Boult C, Reed RL, Aliberti E. Predictive validity of the Pra instrument among older recipients of managed care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997 May;45(5):614-7.
Paquette-Lamontagne N, McLean WM, Besse L, Cusson J. Evaluation of a new integrated discharge prescription form. Ann Pharmacother. 2001 Jul-Aug;35(7-8):953-8.
Phillips CO, Wright SM, Kern DE, Singa RM, Shepperd S, Rubin HR. Comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004 Mar 17;291(11):1358-67. Erratum in: JAMA. 2004 Sep 1;292(9):1022.
Reuben DB, Keeler E, Seeman TE, Sewall A, Hirsch SH, Guralnik JM. Development of a method to identify seniors at high risk for high hospital utilization. Med Care. 2002 Sep;40(9):782-93.
Romano PS, Chan BK. Risk-adjusting acute myocardial infarction mortality: are APR-DRGs the right tool? Health Serv Res. 2000 Mar;34(7):1469-89.
Sands DZ, Safran C. Closing the loop of patient care--a clinical trial of a computerized discharge medication program. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:841-5.
Sexton J, Ho YJ, Green CF, Caldwell NA. Ensuring seamless care at hospital discharge: a national survey. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2000 Oct;25(5):385-93.
Shelton P, Sager MA, Schraeder C. The community assessment risk screen (CARS): identifying elderly persons at risk for hospitalization or emergency department visit. Am J Manag Care. 2000 Aug;6(8):925-33.
Smith DM, Giobbie-Hurder A, Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG, Asch DA, Ashton CM, Feussner JR, Ginier P, Huey JM, Hynes DM, Loo L, Mengel CE. Predicting non-elective hospital readmissions: a multi-site study. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Primary Care and Readmissions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Nov;53(11):1113-8.
van Walraven C, Laupacis A, Seth R, Wells G. Dictated versus database-generated discharge summaries: a randomized clinical trial. CMAJ. 1999 Feb 9;160(3):319-26.
van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Mar;17(3):186-92.
van Walraven C, Seth R, Laupacis A. Dissemination of discharge summaries. Not reaching follow-up physicians. Can Fam Physician. 2002 Apr;48:737-42.
Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG. Does increased access to primary care reduce hospital readmissions? Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Primary Care and Hospital Readmission. N Engl J Med. 1996 May 30;334(22):1441-7.

Responsible Party: james f. graumlich, Professor of Medicine, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00101868     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers: 1R01HS015084-01 ( U.S. AHRQ Grant/Contract )
1R01HS015084-02 ( U.S. AHRQ Grant/Contract )
First Submitted: January 14, 2005
First Posted: January 17, 2005
Results First Submitted: March 18, 2012
Results First Posted: May 15, 2012
Last Update Posted: May 15, 2012
Last Verified: April 2012

Keywords provided by james f. graumlich, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ):
Aged
Hospitalists
Outcome and process assessment (health care)
Human
Hospitals, teaching
Physicians, family
Medical records
Quality assurance, health care
Medical errors


To Top