Improving the process of discharge (2)
Editor – I was delighted to read Dainty and Elizabeth's paper (Clin Med August 2009 pp 311–4).
While I agree that discharge planning should always begin early on in the admission process, practically this is not always possible. There may be detrimental steps when focus on discharge becomes the priority of the admissions unit. Making an accurate comprehensive diagnosis in the context of multiple pathology, delirium and complicated social circumstances takes time. There are always quality of care issues that are as important as length of stay. Inappropriate readmission may be an unfortunate consequence. Without the correct facts about social circumstances and a secure medical diagnosis and for that matter multidisciplinary assessment, you cannot predict length of stay or rehabilitation potential and requirements.
It really does undermine care when all professions focus on ‘what can we do to get them out’ rather than ‘how can we best help this patient’.
There is often a cocktail of chaos and conflicting information by the time a patient reaches a care of the elderly ward. The unpredictable nature of so many of our frail elderly compounds the story. Amid this chaos, informing a family or next of kin about forced untimely discharge will generate complaints and distrust. A typical example would be the very variable length of stay for an elderly lady with fractured neck of femur. Consider all the possible postoperative complications. Multiple bed moves and conflicting and contradictory information from different professionals becomes normality. One says ‘nil by mouth’ another says ‘dysphagic diet’. One ward says rehabilitation is required another says reablement or resource centre care is required. Not only are the family confused most of the junior doctors have little or no understanding of types of community care available in their own town, let alone neighbouring and often differing arrangements for out-of-area patients.
My opinion relating to timely discharge is that it can only be estimated when all the correct facts and medical information are available. And even then in the hands of an experienced physician and geriatrician it is not always easy. The phrase ‘fit for medical discharge’ is a misnomer. If the patient cannot walk and lives alone requiring a package of care from social services they are not fit for discharge. More accurately they are well enough not to require an acute hospital bed but so frail they cannot be discharged without social support.
I commend this article and timely preparation for discharge in all patients admitted to hospital. What may be lacking is the experience to know, and the honesty to admit at times we just have to wait and see.
Improving the process of discharge (2)
When developing our review we were keen to generate discussion with a view to raising awareness of, and improving practice around, discharge planning. We therefore appreciate the comments of Drs Levine and Leung.
We agree that sharing accurate information in a timely manner is a key factor in both discharge planning and provision of high-quality care. The presence on ward rounds of nursing staff should improve this, but can be suboptimal. Combined paperwork and single assessment pathways, alongside daily targeted multidisciplinary meetings have been used in the admission unit at Stafford with some effect. Many other assessment units (eg Wolverhampton) provide active elderly care in-reach services and/or regular consultant input, potentially facilitating more appropriate discharge and admission.
Admissions units are a hub in most acute hospitals, and accurate assessment and decision making, with early senior clinician involvement at the point of admission, can ultimately improve care downstream. We would endorse the points raised by Dr Leung regarding the potential conflict between early discharge and the provision of high-quality care, and the fact that many frail patients with complex medical conditions and social circumstances cannot be discharged directly from admissions units.
Pathways/protocols for early discharge of patients with selected conditions (eg deep vein thrombosis, cellulitis) from admission units have been described.1,2 We also recognise concerns of colleagues around setting discharge dates, and use the term ‘provisional discharge date’ in the notes, thus allowing flexibility.
Comprehensive assessment for many patients requires admission to specialist elderly care wards, where time will allow multidisciplinary assessment to occur. Our review aims to improve discharge planning both from admissions areas and specialist wards, improving the flow of patients through hospital, to allow more efficient use of resources.
Regular formal multidisciplinary meetings that document clear plans, proposed timescales, and individual responsibilities (either in clinical notes or on multidisciplinary handover sheets) can advance this process. We have also found that whiteboards are helpful in focusing actions of members of the multidisciplinary team.
Discharging patients, both from admissions unit and elderly care wards, can be a challenging process, and should be actively taught to doctors in training. Unsafe discharges reflect poor care and are unacceptable.
Footnotes
Please submit letters for the Editor's consideration within three weeks of receipt of the Journal. Letters should ideally be limited to 350 words, and sent by email to: Clinicalmedicine{at}rcplondon.ac.uk
- © 2010 Royal College of Physicians
References
Footnotes
Please submit letters for the Editor's consideration within three weeks of receipt of the Journal. Letters should ideally be limited to 350 words, and sent by email to: Clinicalmedicine{at}rcplondon.ac.uk
- © 2010 Royal College of Physicians
Article Tools
Citation Manager Formats
Jump to section
Related Articles
- No related articles found.
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.