title: When can I go home? A prospective case control study to improve communication with patients regarding their diagnosis, treatment plan and likely discharge date.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study aimed to improve our ability to communicate with patients with regard to four key issues. Their diagnosis, treatment plan, clinical criteria for discharge and estimated discharge date.
  
  
  METHODS
  This was a prospective case control study. It involved 200 general medical patients admitted to Christchurch Public Hospital. Each day there were two general medical admitting teams. One team formed the control group and the other team the intervention group. The 100 patients in the control group had their consultant ward round as normal. The 100 patients in the intervention group had a consultant ward round and were provided with additional written information answering the following four points: (1) their diagnosis (2) management plan for the day (3) clinical criteria for discharge and (4) estimated date of discharge. This was a laminated sheet that remained attached to their bedside locker. At four or more hours after the ward round every new patient would undergo a questionnaire based interview addressing their ability to correctly answer the points listed above. A comparison was then made between the intervention and control groups. A subgroup (n=30) were selected to obtain feedback on the initiative.
  
  
  RESULTS
  90% of respondents from the intervention group knew their diagnosis versus 59% of the control group (p<0.01). 76% knew their treatment plan for the day versus 41% (p<0.01). 76% knew some of the clinical criteria for safe discharge versus 25% (p<0.01) and 83% of the intervention group knew their estimated discharge date versus 52% of the control group (p<0.01). The median age of the patients in the intervention group was 78 years of age and 74 for the control group (p>0.05). Of those that gave feedback 70% believed the intervention was helpful in helping them understand their diagnosis and 70% believed knowing their likely discharge date was useful.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of a card with written information for the patient regarding their diagnosis, treatment plan, clinical criteria for safe discharge and estimated discharge date at the bedside helped improve the patients understanding of their care and aided effective communication.
authors.affiliation: Christchurch Hospital, Riccarton Avenue, PO Box 4710, Christchurch, New Zealand. David.murphy@glos.nhs.uk.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Murphy
authors.forename: Rebecca
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Crowley
authors.forename: Anthony
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Spencer
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Birch
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D003933:Diagnosis; D005260:Female; D058015:Health Communication / Q000379:methods*; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010351:Patient Discharge; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D013812:Therapeutics; D055815:Young Adult