Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow BJGP Open on Instagram
  • Visit bjgp open on Bluesky
  • Blog
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
Research

Improving discharge summaries from hospital with a brief recommendation text box: results from a nationwide survey

Thorbjørn H Mikkelsen, Jesper B Nielsen, Maria M Storsveen and Jens Søndergaard
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (4): BJGPO.2024.0046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0046
Thorbjørn H Mikkelsen
1 Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thorbjørn H Mikkelsen
  • For correspondence: thmikkelsen@health.sdu.dk
Jesper B Nielsen
1 Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jesper B Nielsen
Maria M Storsveen
1 Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Maria M Storsveen
Jens Søndergaard
1 Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jens Søndergaard
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Danish hospital physicians are obliged to mark discharge summaries addressing whether the GP is recommended to follow up the patient, as well as stating suggested follow-up actions in a recommendation text box.

Aim To investigate GPs’ experiences with the recommendation text box in discharge summaries.

Design & setting A questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of GPs in Denmark in January 2021.

Method A questionnaire was prepared for GPs based on background material, focus group interviews, and discussions with GPs and hospital physicians. It was subsequently pilot-tested by fellow researchers and GPs, and revised before the survey.

Results Seventy-two per cent of the GPs surveyed ‘totally agree' or 'partly agree’ that the recommendation text box is easy to find. In addition, our results show significant differences on how difficult the recommendation box is to find on different software. Sixty-three per cent ‘totally agree’ or ‘partly agree’ that the recommendation text box provides brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up.

Conclusion GPs generally find that the recommendation text box provides them with brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up. In addition, the software used by the GPs has a significant influence on how the recommendation text box is to find.

  • patient safety
  • general practice
  • surveys and questionnaires

How this fits in

Follow-up by the GP after discharge from hospital is important for patient safety and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Danish hospital physicians are obliged to mark the discharge summaries addressing whether the GP is recommended to follow-up the patient as well as to suggest any follow-up action. This study shows that the Danish GPs find that the recommendation text box provides them with brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up. It also demonstrates that the software used by the GPs has a significant influence on how easy the recommendation text box is to find.

Introduction

Follow-up by the GP after the patient’s discharge from hospital is important for patient safety and reduces the risk of hospital readmission.1 Despite this, GPs often have little time to review discharge summaries,2,3 and failures occur in the processing of requested actions in almost half of all discharge summaries.4–7

To improve patient safety and handover to general practice, marked discharge summaries (MDS) with a brief recommendation to the patient’s GP about how to follow-up on the patient, have been introduced in Denmark. The intention was that, by only including the necessary information in the MDS, discharge summaries would be both more focused and easier to find than they were before 2019.8 Since 2019, hospital physicians have been obliged to mark up the discharge summaries to signify whether the GP is recommended to follow-up on the patient as well as briefly and precisely to state the suggested follow-up action in a recommendation text box.8,9 Another reason for creating the recommendation text box was to make it easy to find in the discharge summary, as it is located at the beginning of the MDS.9,10 In this study, we give a short and focused discussion on GPs' experiences with the recommendation text box in relation to the primary aims of the box, which are that it is easy to find and that it provides brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up, as this was some of the main reasons for introducing the MDSs.

Each region in Denmark has its own electronic medical record (EMR) in which the discharge summaries are made. However, Region Zealand and the Capital Region have the same EMRs. The GPs were using seven different EMRs, each of which displays the discharge summaries in a way they find suitable. These aspects, in combination with demographic characteristics, such as the type of clinic, age, and sex, may influence the GP's perception of the new solution.

Discharge summaries have previously contained a recommendation. With the MDS these recommendations are to be placed at the top of the discharge summary by the software, stressing that it should provide brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up. The recommended follow-up is not an assignment; the GP may always, based on their knowledge of the patient, make an independent assessment of whether they find it relevant to follow the recommendation.9 The GP's obligations regarding the discharged patient have not been changed, the recommendation box is rather an extra service making it easy and fast to determine if and what the GP needs to be aware of after discharge from hospital. The recommendations are not followed by funding per se; however, Danish GPs are paid by a mixture of per-capita payment and fees for services. Two-thirds come from fee-for-service payments and follow-up actions are reimbursed.10

The guide regarding the MDS with a recommendation text box states that:8,9

  • the hospital physician must mark the discharge summaries in which follow-up by the GP is recommended;

  • the hospital physician must fill in the recommendation text box on marked MDSs; and

  • within given time limits, GPs must review discharge summaries marked as containing a recommendation for follow-up on discharge.

    • Markings and follow-up: red: within 1–2 working days; yellow: within 14 days; green: before initial patient contact; no colour marking: no recommended follow-up.

To our knowledge, in 2019 Denmark became the first country to implement MDS with a recommendation text box. Therefore, it is important now to examine if the MDS is seen as supporting the work of GPs and the continuity of care.

Aim

This study aims to investigate the GPs’ experiences with the MDSs recommendation text box.

Method

Study population

A questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of GPs in Denmark by the Danish Organisation of General Practitioners (PLO), the professional body for all GPs in Denmark. The questionnaire survey was carried out from 5–26 January 2021. Non-responders received a reminder on 19 January 2021. It took approximately 15 minutes to answer the questionnaire. The GPs were remunerated in accordance with instructions laid down by The Danish College of General Practitioners (DSAM), corresponding to DKK 206.43 (approximately 24 GBP) for answering the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was sent to 798 GPs.

Questionnaire

We prepared the questionnaire for the GPs based on background material, focus group interviews, and discussions with the project advisory board, including representatives from Danish Regions, PLO, MedCom, and the Danish Patient Safety Authority. The questionnaire was constructed with answers on a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was pilot-tested by fellow researchers and GPs, and revised before the survey.

Data analysis

Our primary aim was to investigate whether the GPs experienced that the recommendation field was easy to find and if it provides brief and precise information about recommended follow-up. GPs answering, ‘totally agree’ and ‘partly agree’ to these questions are perceived to evaluate the items positively. We found that logistic regression was the best statistical method to investigate if the other listed aspects in table 3 and 4 influence whether the GPs' experiences are positive or not. Both unadjusted and adjusted analyses were carried out. We adjusted for the influence of region, EMR, sex, age group (aged ≤55 years versus aged >55 years), type of clinic (solo versus multi), and whether the clinic employs nurses. The rationale for including the list of covariates in the adjusted multivariate models is that sex and age could possibly affect the GPs’ willingness to embrace new electronic solutions. The size of the clinic and whether it employs nurses may influence how used the GPs are to taking advice from colleagues and hence how they perceive recommendations from other healthcare professionals. We applied an adjusted logistic regression, adjusting for geographic region, software used by the clinics, sex, age group, type of clinic, and whether the clinic employed one or more nurses. A P value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Stata (version 18) was used for analysis.

Results

The questionnaire was sent to 798 GPs, of whom 310 responded, corresponding to a response rate of 38.8%. As can be seen from Table 1, the sample and the responders closely resemble the composition of Danish GPs. The age, sex, and geographical distribution, among those who answered, is largely similar to that among all Danish GPs and the distribution of the responses is similar to the distribution of GPs in the regions (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Characteristics of responding GPs (n = 310) compared with all Danish GPs

The distribution of software is approximately the same among Danish GP clinics and among the responding GPs (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2. The distribution of software in general practice clinics and among the GPs who have answered the questionnaire

Our results show that 40% ‘totally agree’ and 32% ‘partly agree’ that the recommendation text box is easy to find, while 12% ‘neither agree nor disagree’, and, respectively, 9% and 7% ‘partly disagree’ and ‘totally disagree’ (Table 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3. Usability of the recommendation text box

One-fifth of the GPs (20%) ‘totally agree’ and 43% ‘partly agree’ that the recommendation text box provides brief and precise information about recommended follow-up, while nearly one-fifth (19%) ‘neither agree nor disagree’, and 13% and 5%, respectively, ‘partly disagree’ and 'totally disagree’ (Table 3).

After adjusting for geographical region, sex, age groups, type of clinic, and whether the clinic employs nurses, there were no statistical differences in the perception of whether the recommendation text box is easy to find. Our results show that the recommendation text box is significantly more difficult to find in the second-most (MDS 2, P value 0.014) and fourth-most (MDS 3, P value 0,033) frequently used software compared with the most widespread software used by the GPs (MDS 1) (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4. The recommendation field is easy to find

There were no statistical differences after adjustment between geographical region, age groups, clinic type, or whether the clinic employ nurses in the perception of whether the recommendation text box is perceived to provide a brief and precise information about recommended follow-up (Table 5). Being female is a statistically significant predictor for agreeing that the recommendation text box provides brief and precise information about recommended follow-up, showing that female GPs answer more positively than male GPs (P value = 0.005) (Table 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5. The recommendation text box provides brief and precise information about recommended follow-up

Discussion

Summary

This study investigates GPs' experiences with the recommendation text box, aiming to determine whether or not it is easy to find and it provides brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up, as this was one of the main reasons for introducing the MDSs.9

This study shows that the new recommendation text box is easy to find for most GPs. GPs using the most widely used software find it relatively easy, while users of the second-most (MDS 2) and fourth-most (MDS 3) widespread software find it significantly more difficult to find it in their software. This result shows that it is important that the suppliers of software optimise their product to ensure the recommendation text box is easy to find. This is also important because our results show that almost two-thirds find that the recommendation text box provides GPs with brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up on discharge from hospital, which has been requested elsewhere.4,7,11–13 Hence the experiences of Danish GPs may inspire healthcare services elsewhere to improve discharge summaries with a recommendation text box at the top of the discharge summaries, thereby improving handover to general practice. In addition, our results show that statistically significantly more female than male GPs find the information brief and precise.

To our knowledge, Denmark was the first country to implement the MDSs with a recommendation text box. The results are positive, showing that the recommendation text box is easy to find and provides brief and precise information about recommended follow-up. Both aspects enhance the continuity of care and reduce information overload.

Strengths and limitations

The purpose of the new recommendation text box was to provide brief and precise information about recommended follow-up by the patient’s GP.9,14 This questionnaire does not provide an unambiguous answer to this question, as we have not asked hospital physicians if they feel they have had the opportunity to provide brief and precise information about recommended follow-up. However, it is considered a strength that this study provides a valid answer from the target group of the discharge summaries, the GPs. In addition, it is also considered a strength that the sample and the responders closely resemble the composition of the wider population of Danish GPs in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and the EMR software used. The response rate of 38.8% is a limitation to this study but is not uncommon in surveys of GPs.15–17 This may lead to biased results, since GPs who feel the strongest about the new discharge summaries are probably those most inclined to answer the questionnaire, regardless of whether they like or dislike the changes.

Moving workload from secondary care to primary care is an ongoing issue, and is a relevant consideration regarding discharge summaries.4 A limitation to this study is that it does not investigate if the GPs feel that the hospitals are passing off workload.

It is a strength of this study that the guideline for filling out the text box, the software used to handle the discharge summaries, and the user interface have not changed since the data were collected, except that the software used in Region Zealand and The Capital Region has shortened the discharge summaries and removed unnecessary information.

Comparison with existing literature

Follow-up plans have previously been identified as important for good communication between hospitals and GPs,4,7,11–13 and research has shown that follow-up plans are often inadequately described in discharge summaries.4,7,13,18 However, our results cannot show whether the recommendation text box has improved the information regarding follow-up, since we have no baseline data to compare with.

Previous research suggests that discharge summaries should contain a ‘GP action’ text box.4 The recommendation text box seems to provide such a ‘GP action’ box.

Region Zealand and the Capital Region use the same EMR,19 hence it could be expected that the results would be similar. However, in the Capital Region 69.3% 'totally agree' or 'partly agree' that the recommendation text box is easy to find, compared with the 51.2% in Region Zealand. While the differences are not statistically significant on adjustment, they do indicate that the results are being influenced by other aspects in the two regions. Since the EMR is the same, the differences might be owing to the EMR being used in different ways. Automatically generated codes, which may only be used if deemed relevant for the GP,9 might account for some of the differences if not used properly.20

Implications for research and practice

The survey shows that the GPs find that the recommendation text box provides the GP with brief and precise information about the recommended follow-up. It also shows a significant influence of the software used by the GPs to present the MDS. In addition, it shows relatively large (yet statistically insignificant) regional differences in the GPs’ experiences of the MDS. Future studies should explore the GPs’ experiences with the new discharge letters in further detail.

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by MedCom. They have not been involved in the analysis of the data or the writing of this paper.

Ethical approval

The study was submitted to the Regional Committee of Health Ethics in the Region of Southern Denmark, Denmark, for approval (case no. 20192000-160). According to the committee, the project falls outside the scope of a notifiable Health Science research project as it is based on interviews.

The study was recommended by the Multi-Practice Committee of the Danish College of General Practitioners and The Danish Organization of General Practitioners (MPU 29-019). The study was conducted in accordance with guidelines for good scientific practice. Storage management of the data fulfilled the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and was registered with the Research and Innovation Organization (RIO), University of Southern Denmark (Project number 10.795).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Data

The datasets are not publicly available due to regulations from The Danish Data Protection Agency.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the participating GPs for their completing the questionaries. We also thank the members of the advisory group: Lena Graversen and Marianne Bjørnø Banke (the Danish Patient Safety Authority), Tom Høg Sørensen and Alice Kristensen (MEDCOM), Jane Holm (Danish Regions), Jette Galatius (Danish Organization of General Practitioners), Nina Bergstedt (The Ministry of the Interior and Health).

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  • Received February 19, 2024.
  • Revision received April 19, 2024.
  • Accepted July 1, 2024.
  • Copyright © 2024, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Moneme AN,
    2. Wirtalla CJ,
    3. Roberts SE,
    4. et al.
    (2023) Primary care physician follow-up and 30-day readmission after emergency general surgery admissions. JAMA Surg 158 (12):1293–1301, doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.4534, pmid:37755816.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Baron RJ
    (2010) What’s keeping us so busy in primary care? A snapshot from one practice. N Engl J Med 362 (17):1632–1636, doi:10.1056/NEJMon0910793, pmid:20427812.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mullenbach J,
    2. Pruksachatkun Y,
    3. Adler S,
    4. et al.
    (2021) CLIP: A dataset for extracting action items for physicians from hospital discharge notes. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (volume 1: long papers) (Association for Computational Linguistics), pp 1365–1378, doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.109.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Spencer RA,
    2. Rodgers S,
    3. Salema N,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Processing discharge summaries in general practice: a qualitative interview study with GPs and practice managers. BJGP Open 3 (1), doi:10.3399/bjgpopen18X101625, pmid:31049407. bjgpopen18X101625.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.
    1. Kripalani S,
    2. LeFevre F,
    3. Phillips CO,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Deficits in communication and information transfer between hospital-based and primary care physicians: implications for patient safety and continuity of care. JAMA 297 (8):831–841, doi:10.1001/jama.297.8.831, pmid:17327525.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    1. Mikkelsen TH,
    2. Søndergaard J,
    3. Kjaer NK,
    4. et al.
    (2023) Handling polypharmacy — a qualitative study using focus group interviews with older patients, their relatives, and healthcare professionals. BMC Geriatr 23 (1), doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04131-6, pmid:37553585. 477.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Spencer RA,
    2. Spencer SEF,
    3. Rodgers S,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Processing of discharge summaries in general practice: a retrospective record review. Br J Gen Pract 68 (673):e576–e585, doi:10.3399/bjgp18X697877, pmid:29914879.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Styrelsen for Patientsikkerhed
    [Guide to discarge summaries 2019] Vejledning om epikriser (in Danish), accessed. https://stps.dk/sundhedsfaglig/viola-viden-og-laering/risikoomraader/patientovergange/vejledning-om-epikriser. 13 Sep 2024.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Styrelsen for Patientsikkerhed
    (2018) Vejledning om epikriser: VEJ nr 10036 af 30/11/2018 (in Danish) (Copenhagen: Styrelsen for Patientsikkerhed), accessed. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/retsinfo/2018/10036. 13 Sep 2024.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Pedersen KM,
    2. Andersen JS,
    3. Søndergaard J
    (2012) General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med 25 Suppl 1 S34–S38, doi:10.3122/jabfm.2012.02.110216, pmid:22403249.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Weetman K,
    2. Spencer R,
    3. Dale J,
    4. et al.
    (2021) What makes a “successful” or “unsuccessful” discharge letter? Hospital clinician and general practitioner assessments of the quality of discharge letters. BMC Health Serv Res 21 (1), doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06345-z, pmid:33858383. 349.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Schwarz CM,
    2. Hoffmann M,
    3. Schwarz P,
    4. et al.
    (2019) A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis on the risks of medical discharge letters for patients’ safety. BMC Health Serv Res 19 (1), doi:10.1186/s12913-019-3989-1, pmid:30866908. 158.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Alderton M,
    2. Callen J
    (2007) Are general practitioners satisfied with electronic discharge summaries? Hlth Inf Manag 36 (1):7–12, doi:10.1177/183335830703600102, pmid:18195392.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Styrelsen for Patientsikkerhed
    (2019) [Leaflet on patient-safe discharge summaries for GPs] Folder om patientsikre epikriser for praktiserende læger (in Danish), accessed. https://stps.dk/Media/638261343885299133/Folder%20om%20patientsikre%20epikriser%20for%20praktiserende%20l%C3%A6ger.pdf. 13 Sep 2024.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kristensen T,
    2. Ejersted C,
    3. Ahnfeldt-Mollerup P,
    4. et al.
    (2022) Profiles of GPs with high and low self-reported physician empathy-personal, professional, and antibiotic prescribing characteristics. BMC Prim Care 23 (1), doi:10.1186/s12875-022-01847-z, pmid:36127665. 243.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. Barfoed BL,
    2. Paulsen MS,
    3. Christensen PM,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Associations between patients’ adherence and GPs’ attitudes towards risk, statin therapy and management of non-adherence—a survey and register-based study. Fam Pract 33 (2):140–147, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmw005, pmid:26936208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Molin KR,
    2. Søndergaard J,
    3. Lange P,
    4. et al.
    (2020) Danish general practitioners’ management of patients with COPD: a nationwide survey. Scand J Prim Health Care 38 (4):391–398, doi:10.1080/02813432.2020.1842964, pmid:33164618.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Wimsett J,
    2. Harper A,
    3. Jones P
    (2014) Review article: components of a good quality discharge summary: a systematic review. Emerg Med Australas 26 (5):430–438, doi:10.1111/1742-6723.12285, pmid:25186466.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Region Hovedstaden
    [My healthcarea platform] Sundhedsplatformen (in Danish), accessed. https://www.regionh.dk/selvbetjening/Sider/min-sundhedsplatform.aspx. 12 Nov 2024.
  20. 20.↵
    1. Freitag C
    (2019) [Red, yellow, green and white - why do the discharge summaries suddenly have colours?] Rød, gul, grøn og hvid — hvorfor har epikriserne nu farver? (in Danish), accessed. https://ugeskriftet.dk/debat/rod-gul-gron-og-hvid-hvorfor-har-epikriserne-nu-farver. 13 Sep 2024.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 8, Issue 4
December 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Improving discharge summaries from hospital with a brief recommendation text box: results from a nationwide survey
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Improving discharge summaries from hospital with a brief recommendation text box: results from a nationwide survey
Thorbjørn H Mikkelsen, Jesper B Nielsen, Maria M Storsveen, Jens Søndergaard
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (4): BJGPO.2024.0046. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0046

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Improving discharge summaries from hospital with a brief recommendation text box: results from a nationwide survey
Thorbjørn H Mikkelsen, Jesper B Nielsen, Maria M Storsveen, Jens Søndergaard
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (4): BJGPO.2024.0046. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0046
del.icio.us logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • How this fits in
    • Introduction
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • Patient safety
  • general practice
  • surveys and questionnaires

More in this TOC Section

  • How does decontextualised risk information affect clinicians understanding of risk and uncertainty in primary care diagnosis? A qualitative study of clinical vignettes
  • Declining number of home visits to older adults by GPs: an observational study using data from electronic health records in The Netherlands, 2017–2023
  • What’s been tried: a curated catalogue of efforts to improve access to general practice
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2025 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795