PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8932108

Multidisciplinary discharge planning: developing a process.

S McGinley·E Baus·K Gyza·K Johnson·S Lipton·M C Magee·F Moore·D Wojtyak
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In today's health care environment, Frankford Health Care System identified the need for a discharge planning process. A multidisciplinary task force developed and implemented a system that decreased length of stay and duplication of services, improved timeliness of intervention and fostered communication and respect among team members. The process included assessment of patient/family needs and coordination of care, services and referrals for all patients.

Explore related subjects

Continuity of Patient CareHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansLength of StayNursing AssessmentPatient Care TeamPatient DischargeJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S McGinley, E Baus, K Gyza, K Johnson, S Lipton, M C Magee, F Moore, D Wojtyak. 1996. Multidisciplinary discharge planning: developing a process.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8932108/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

The hospitalist model: perspectives of the patient, the Internist, and internal medicine.

The use of hospitalists has implications for patients, for internists, and for the specialty of internal medicine. For patients, the greatest concern is interrupting the continuity of a supportive relationship with their regular physican. For many internists, the hospitalist model is attractive, but they are concerned that health plans will compel physicians to transfer their patients to a hospitalist at the time of admission to the hospital (mandatory hand-off). Thus, the hospitalist could become the means to exclude internists from hospital care and deprive them of an important source of professional satisfaction. The specialty of internal medicine is very concerned about the mandatory hand-off because it threatens the internist's identity as the physician who can care for the sickest patients in any venue, making it harder for patients and health plans to distinguish the internist from family physicians and nurse practitioners. The hospitalist movement has much to offer internal medicine. To enjoy the benefits and avoid the harms associated with the hospitalist model, internal medicine must resist the imposition of the mandatory hand-off and use the hospitalist's focus on excellent inpatient care to improve the practice of medicine by all internists.

Continuity of Patient Care↗
PubMed1999

Increasing compliance with the Residency Review Committee requirements for follow-up in academic emergency departments. Emergency Medicine Follow-up Study Group.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess patient follow-up activities and changes in compliance with the Residency Review Committee follow-up requirements among emergency medicine residency training programs over a 12-year period. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of residency directors of all accredited programs in emergency medicine listed in the Graduate Medical Education Directory was performed in 1996. Program director responses were matched with the results of our study group's previous surveys performed in 1984, 1988, and 1992. The survey requested information regarding the mechanism for follow-up on patients admitted to the hospital, as well as those treated and released from the emergency department. RESULTS: All residency programs responded to the survey. Seventy-four percent of the residency programs surveyed reported a formal system of follow-up for admitted patients, and 51% had a formal system in place for discharged patients. Inpatient follow-up mechanisms included follow-up case conferences (56%), discharge summaries (55%), follow-up book/cards (47%), or follow-up rounds (11%). Outpatient follow-up mechanisms included routine telephone follow-up (86%), follow-up document (37%), ED follow-up clinic (24%), or home visits (<1%). During the past 12 years, compliance with the Residency Review Committee requirements for follow-up activity has improved from 38% to 78% for inpatients and from 33% to 52% for outpatients. CONCLUSION: Emergency medicine residency training programs report an increasing compliance with residency requirements for ED patient follow-up. However, a significant number of programs still lack a formal mechanism. Compliance continues to be much better for patients admitted to the hospital than those treated and released. Specific suggestions and model follow-up mechanisms are described.

Continuity of Patient Care↗