Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Maintaining continuity of care: a look at the quality of communication between Ontario emergency departments and community physicians

  • Andrew P. Stiell (a1), Alan J. Forster (a1) (a2), Ian G. Stiell (a1) (a3) and Carl van Walraven (a1) (a2) (a4)

Abstract

Background:

To maintain continuity of care when a patient's care is transferred between physicians, continuity of patient information is required. This survey determined how, and how well, Ontario emergency departments (EDs) communicate patient information to physicians in the community.

Methods:

We surveyed Ontario ED chiefs to determine the most common media and methods used for disseminating information. We measured the perceived quality of their system, which was regressed against the hospital teaching status and community size using generalized logits modelling. Finally, we elicited the components of an ideal communication system for the ED.

Results:

One hundred and forty-three (85.6%) Ontario ED chiefs participated. The ED record of treatment was the most commonly used medium (95%). Postal service was the most common (55%) method of disseminating information. Thirty-three chiefs (23%) perceived the quality of communicating patient information from their ED as unsatisfactory or inadequate. This perception was significantly more prevalent in larger communities (excellent v. unsatisfactory [odds ratio (OR) 44.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.9-140] and satisfactory v. unsatisfactory [OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.6-5.1]) and in teaching hospitals (satisfactory v. unsatisfactory [OR 9.7, 95% CI 4.7-20.3]). Seventy-eight percent of responding chiefs felt that patient information should be disseminated using electronic means, either through email or server access.

Conclusions:

To communicate patient information to community physicians, Ontario ED chiefs report that a copy of the ED record of treatment is sent by postal service. More than one-fifth of ED chiefs perceived communication from their department as unsatisfactory or inadequate. Studies that assess the completeness and accuracy of the record of treatment are required as a first step for measuring the quality of patient information communication in the Ontario ED system.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Maintaining continuity of care: a look at the quality of communication between Ontario emergency departments and community physicians
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Maintaining continuity of care: a look at the quality of communication between Ontario emergency departments and community physicians
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Maintaining continuity of care: a look at the quality of communication between Ontario emergency departments and community physicians
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa HospitalCivic Campus, F660 – 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa ON K1Y 4E9; 613 761-4903, fax 613 761-5351, carlv@ohri.ca

References

Hide All
1.Cook, RI, Render, M, Woods, DD. Gaps in the continuity of care and progress on patient safety. BMJ 2000;320:791–4.
2.Gosbee, J. Communication among health professionals. BMJ 1998;316:642.
3.Regan, WA. Communications: doctors-nurse-patient triangle. Regan report on nursing law 1983;23:1.
4.Buckingham, JK, Gould, IM, Tervitt, G, Williams, S. Prevention of endocarditis: communication between doctors and dentists. Br Dent J 1992;172:414–5.
5.van Walraven, C, Seth, R, Laupacis, A. Hospital discharge summaries infrequently get to post-hospitalization physicians. Can Fam Physician 2002;48:737–43.
6.van Walraven, C, Weinberg, AL. Quality assessment of a discharge summary system. CMAJ 1995;152:1437–42.
7.Mageean, RJ. Study of “discharge communications” from hospital. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986;293:1283–4.
8.Haikio, JP, Linden, K, Kvist, M. Outcomes of referrals from general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care 1995;13:287–93.
9.Stiell, A, Forster, AJ, Stiell, IG, van Walraven, C. Prevalence of information gaps in the emergency department and the effect on patient outcomes. CMAJ 2003;169(10):1023–8.
10.Taylor, DM, Chappell-Lawrence, J, Graham, IS. Facsimile communication between emergency departments and GPs, and patient data confidentiality. Med J Aust 1997;167:575–8.
11.Chan, BTB, Schull, MJ, Schultz, SE. Atlas Report 1993–2000. Emergency department services in Ontario. ICES Atlast Report Series. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2001. p. 2431.
12.Brown, JB, Sangster, LM, Ostbye, T, Barnsley, JM, Mathews, M, Ogilvie, G. Walk-in clinics: patient expectations and family physician availability. Am Prac 1919;202–6.
13.Wass, AR, Illingworth, RN. What information do general practitioners want about accident and emergency patients? J Accid Emerg Med 1996;13:406–8.
14.Harris, MF, Giles, A, O'Toole, BI. Communication across the divide. A trial of structured communication between general practice and emergency departments. Aust Fam Physician 2002; 31(2):197200.
15.Vukmir, RB, Kremen, R, Ellis, GL, DeHart, DA, Plewa, MC, Menegazzi, J. Compliance with emergency department referral: the effect of computerized discharge instructions. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22(5):819–23.
16.Jansen, JO, Grant, IC. Communication with general practitioners after accident and emergency attendance: computer generated letters are often deficient. Emerg Med J 2003;20(3);256–7.
17.Parshuram, CS, Young, SJ, Phillips, RJ. Communication from a computerized emergency department to general practitioners. J Paediatr Child Health 1998;34(6):591–2.
18.Williams, MJ, Haley, P, Gosnold, JK. An improved method of communication between computerized accident and emergency departments and general practitioners. Arch Emerg Med 1991;8:192–5.
19.Johnson, PH, Wilkinson, I, Sutherland, AM, Johnston, ID, Hall, IP. Improving communication between hospital and primary care increases follow-up rates for asthmatic patients following casualty attendance. Respir Med 1998;92(2):289–91.
20.Sherry, M, Edmunds, S, Touquet, R. The reliability of patients in delivering their letter from the hospital accident and emergency department to their general practitioner. Arch Emerg Med 1985;2(3):161-4.
21.Stiell, IG, Nesbitt, L, Wells, GA, Campbell, S, Nadkarni, V, Berg, R, et al.What are the most important unanswered questions for pediatric cardiac arrest? [abstract]. Can J Emerg Med 2004;6(3):203.
22.Stokes, ME, Davis, CS, Koch, GG. Logistic Regression II: Polytomous response. In: Categorical data analysis using the SAS system. Cary (NC): SAS Institute Inc; 2000. p. 241–70.

Keywords

Maintaining continuity of care: a look at the quality of communication between Ontario emergency departments and community physicians

  • Andrew P. Stiell (a1), Alan J. Forster (a1) (a2), Ian G. Stiell (a1) (a3) and Carl van Walraven (a1) (a2) (a4)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed