Cited by 203Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in HealthcareHospital Admissions and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are patients discharged with care? A qualitative study of perceptions and experiences of patients, family members and care providers

Open access

Abstract

Background: Advocates for quality and safety have called for healthcare that is patient-centred and decision-making that involves patients. Objective: The aim of the paper is to explore the barriers and facilitators to patient-centred care in the hospital discharge process. Methods: A qualitative study using purposive sampling of 192 individual interviews and 26 focus group interviews was conducted in five European Union countries with patients and/or family members, hospital physicians and nurses, and community general practitioners and nurses. A modified Grounded Theory approach was used to analyse the data. Results: The barriers and facilitators were classified into 15 categories from which four themes emerged: (1) healthcare providers do not sufficiently prioritise discharge consultations with patients and family members due to time restraints and competing care obligations; (2) discharge communication varied from instructing patients and family members to shared decision-making; (3) patients often feel unprepared for discharge, and postdischarge care is not tailored to individual patient needs and preferences; and (4) pressure on available hospital beds and community resources affect the discharge process. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that involvement of patients and families in the preparations for discharge is determined by the extent to which care providers are willing and able to accommodate patients’ and families’ capabilities, needs and preferences. Future interventions should be directed at healthcare providers’ attitudes and their organisation's leadership, with a focus on improving communication among care providers, patients and families, and between hospital and community care providers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001165

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Procedure: from data collection to the subanalysis.
Figure 1 Procedure: from data collection to the subanalysis.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the twenty-first century. Washington: National Academies Press, 2001.
  2. Goodrich J Cornwell J . Seeing the person in the patient: the point of care review paper. London: The King's Fund, 2008:1–63.
  3. Tripp JS . Development and evaluation of notifications to inform primary care providers of summary documentation for their patients’ hospital visits. The University of Utah, [Dissertation]. Salt Lake City, UT: Univ of Utah; 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Hesselink, G., Flink, M., Olsson, M., Barach, P., Dudzik-Urbaniak, E., Orrego, C., Toccafondi, G., Kalkman, C., Johnson, J. K., Schoonhoven, L., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Wollersheim, H., & Collaborative, O. B. O. T. E. H. R.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • University College Cork (IE)
  • National Center for Quality Assessment in Health Care, Krakow, Poland
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Regione Toscana (IT)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Hesselink, Gijs
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-11-01
Volume
21
Issue
Suppl 1
Pages
i39-i49
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2099043395
Cited by
203
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
16.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (223409)
  • FP7 Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Leadership and Management › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
hospital discharge, patient-centered care, shared decision-making, discharge communication, barriers and facilitators, patient and family involvement, post-discharge care, hospital bed pressure, hospital-community care transition, patient readiness, clinician attitudes
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Decision Making, European Union, Family, Health Personnel, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Discharge, Patients, Focus Groups, Efficiency, Organizational, Patient-Centered Care, Qualitative Research, Patient Handoff

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review