Key result
An electronic discharge communication tool did not significantly reduce the 90-day composite of death or readmission compared to usual care (32.8% vs 29.4%, p=0.166).
Why the study?
Does an electronic discharge communication tool reduce death or hospital readmission in patients discharged from internal medicine units?
RCT (n=1,399)
randomly assigned
No
Does an electronic discharge communication tool reduce death or hospital readmission in patients discharged from internal medicine units?
The use of an electronic discharge communication tool did not significantly reduce the composite of death or hospital readmission at 90 days compared to traditional dictation.
Suggests technological communication tools alone cannot overcome post-discharge vulnerability; leaves open whether more intensive,.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of an electronic discharge communication tool (e-DCT) for preventing death or hospital readmission, as well as reducing patient-reported adverse events after hospital discharge. The e-DCT assessed has already been shown to yield high-quality discharge summaries with high levels of patient and physician satisfaction. METHODS: This two-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted in a Canadian tertiary care centre's internal medicine medical teaching units. Out of the 1953 patients approached and screened for inclusion, 1399 were randomised and available for data linkage for determination of the primary outcome. Participants were randomly assigned to e-DCT versus usual care (traditional discharge communication generated by dictation). The primary outcome was a composite of death or readmission within 90 days. The secondary outcome included any patient-reported adverse events within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 1399 randomised participants, 230 of 701 participants (32.8%) in the e-DCT group experienced the primary composite outcome of death or readmission within 90 days vs 205 of 698 participants (29.4%) in the usual care group (p=0.166). The incidence at 30 days of patient-reported adverse outcomes (35% for e-DCT vs 34% for usual care) and adverse events (2.1% for e-DCT vs 1.8% for usual care) also did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The e-DCT tested did not reduce the composite endpoint of death or readmission at 90 days, nor the incidence of patient-reported adverse events at 30 days. This neutral finding for hard clinical endpoints needs to be considered in the context of high patient and physician satisfaction, and high quality of discharge summaries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santana et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Hospital discharge (n=1,399). electronic discharge communication tool (e-DCT) vs. usual care (traditional discharge communication generated by dictation) was evaluated on composite of death or readmission within 90 days (p=0.166). An electronic discharge communication tool did not significantly reduce the 90-day composite of death or readmission compared to usual care (32.8% vs 29.4%, p=0.166).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: