title: Does a dedicated discharge coordinator improve the quality of hospital discharge?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the effectiveness of the role of a discharge coordinator whose sole responsibility was to plan and coordinate the discharge of patients from medical wards.
  
  
  METHODS
  An intervention study in which the quality of discharge planning was assessed before and after the introduction of a discharge coordinator. Patients were interviewed on the ward before discharge and seven to 10 days after being discharged home.
  
  
  METHODS
  The three medical wards at the Homerton Hospital in Hackney, East London.
  
  
  METHODS
  600 randomly sampled adult patients admitted to the medical wards of the study hospital, who were resident in the district (but not in institutions), were under the care of physicians (excluding psychiatry), and were discharged home from one of the medical wards. The sampling was conducted in three study phases, over 18 months.
  
  
  METHODS
  Phase I comprised base line data collection; in phase II data were collected after the introduction of the district discharge planning policy and a discharge form (checklist) for all patients; in phase III data were collected after the introduction of the discharge coordinator.
  
  
  METHODS
  The quality and out come of discharge planning. Readmission rates, duration of stay, appropriateness of days of care, patients' health and satisfaction, problems after discharge, and receipt of services.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The discharge coordinator resulted in an improved discharge planning process, and there was a reduction in problems experienced by patients after discharge, and in perceived need for medical and healthcare services. There was no evidence that the discharge coordinator resulted in a more timely or effective provision of community services after discharge, or that the appropriateness or efficiency of bed use was improved.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The introduction of a discharge coordinator improved the quality of discharge planning, but at additional cost.
authors.affiliation: Research Unit, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Houghton
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bowling
authors.forename: K D
authors.initials: KD
authors.lastname: Clarke
authors.forename: A P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Hopkins
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Jones
mesh_terms: D000203:Activities of Daily Living; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay; D008131:London; D010351:Patient Discharge / Q000592:standards*; D010359:Patient Readmission; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015397:Program Evaluation; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012947:Social Work / Q000458:organization & administration*; D013222:State Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration / Q000592:standards