Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Although multiple factors influence discharge decisions, there is no structured guidance to assist clinicians in making informed decisions. A discharge information checklist might improve the appropriateness of dermatology clinicians' discharge decisions.
OBJECTIVES: To generate consensus among dermatologists on the content of an outpatient discharge checklist, to create one and to seek clinicians' opinions on its usefulness.
METHODS: Seventeen consultant dermatologists from five National Health Service trusts completed a 72-item Delphi questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate each item for importance in contributing to a high-quality discharge decision. Eighteen clinicians completed a questionnaire evaluating checklist use.
RESULTS: Consensus was determined when ≥ 75% of consultants rated an item 'very important' or 'important'. There was strong inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0·958) and fair inter-rater agreement (Fleiss kappa = 0·269). There were 26 consensus-agreed items, condensed to 13 that formed the 'traffic-light' checklist. These are disease-related issues (diagnostic certainty, disease severity, treatment appropriateness, patient manageable in primary care, patient's benefit from follow-up), patient empowerment issues (understanding diagnosis and treatment outcome, having a clear plan, treatment side-effects, ability to self-manage) and addressing concerns (patient concerns, easy reaccess to secondary care, whether patient and clinician are happy with the decision). Twelve clinicians (67%) found the checklist useful, 11 (61%) wanted to use it in future, 10 (56%) thought it was useful for training and three (17%) said it helped their thinking. Clinicians suggested its use for auditing and for training clinicians and administrators.
CONCLUSIONS: Items were identified to create an outpatient discharge information checklist, which demonstrated high acceptability.
Although multiple factors influence discharge decisions, there is no structured guidance to assist clinicians in making informed decisions. A discharge information checklist might improve the appropriateness of dermatology clinicians' discharge decisions.
OBJECTIVES: To generate consensus among dermatologists on the content of an outpatient discharge checklist, to create one and to seek clinicians' opinions on its usefulness.
METHODS: Seventeen consultant dermatologists from five National Health Service trusts completed a 72-item Delphi questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate each item for importance in contributing to a high-quality discharge decision. Eighteen clinicians completed a questionnaire evaluating checklist use.
RESULTS: Consensus was determined when ≥ 75% of consultants rated an item 'very important' or 'important'. There was strong inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0·958) and fair inter-rater agreement (Fleiss kappa = 0·269). There were 26 consensus-agreed items, condensed to 13 that formed the 'traffic-light' checklist. These are disease-related issues (diagnostic certainty, disease severity, treatment appropriateness, patient manageable in primary care, patient's benefit from follow-up), patient empowerment issues (understanding diagnosis and treatment outcome, having a clear plan, treatment side-effects, ability to self-manage) and addressing concerns (patient concerns, easy reaccess to secondary care, whether patient and clinician are happy with the decision). Twelve clinicians (67%) found the checklist useful, 11 (61%) wanted to use it in future, 10 (56%) thought it was useful for training and three (17%) said it helped their thinking. Clinicians suggested its use for auditing and for training clinicians and administrators.
CONCLUSIONS: Items were identified to create an outpatient discharge information checklist, which demonstrated high acceptability.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 572-582 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | British Journal of Dermatology |
| Volume | 175 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 7 Apr 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2016 |