Information DisseminationNCT00101868
Value of Technology to Transfer Discharge Information
A study testing Discharge communication software in people with Information Dissemination and Interprofessional Relations, run by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The transition from hospital to home is a high-risk period in a patient's illness. Poor communication between healthcare providers at hospital discharge is common and contributes to adverse events affecting patients after discharge. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Information Dissemination, Interprofessional Relations
- What is being tested?
- Discharge communication software
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 631 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Dec 2004to Aug 2007
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Inpatients at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center
- Discharged by the hospitalist service or other inpatient services
- High risk for poor post-discharge outcomes defined as probability of readmission (PRA) 0.4 or above
Who cannot join
- Less than 18 years old
- Unwilling or unable to provide written consent
- Life expectancy less than 6 months
- Will receive outpatient care from a primary care physician who is the same as the discharging physician
- Do not speak English or Spanish
- Not alert and oriented when admitted
Show all 10Show fewer
- Do not have telephone for post-discharge contact
- Do not reside in Central Illinois
- Will be discharged to a nursing home
- Previously enrolled as subjects in the trial
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
OSF Saint Francis Medical Center
Peoria, Illinois, 61637
About this study
The transition from hospital to home is a high-risk period in a patient's illness. Poor communication between healthcare providers at hospital discharge is common and contributes to adverse events affecting patients after discharge. The importance of good communication at discharge will increase as more primary care providers delegate inpatient care to hospitalists. Any process that improves information transfer among providers at discharge might improve the health and safety of patients discharged from U.S. hospitals each year, and to appreciably reduce unnecessary healthcare expenditures. Information transfer among healthcare providers and their patients can be undermined because of inaccuracies, omissions, illegibility, logistical failure (e.g., information is never delivered), and delays in generation (i.e., dictation or transcription) or transmission. Root causes include recall error, increased physician workloads, interface failures (e.g., physician-clerical) and poor training of physicians in the discharge process. Many of the deficiencies in the current process of information transfer at hospital discharge could be effectively addressed by the application of information technology. The proposed study will measure the value of a software application to facilitate information transfer at hospital discharge. The study is designed to compare the benefits of discharge health information technology versus usual care in high-risk patients recently discharged from acute care hospitalization. The design is a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. The outcomes are readmission within 6 months, adverse events, and effectiveness and satisfaction with the discharge process from the patient and physician perspectives. The cost outcome is the physician time required to use the discharge software.
Read the detailed description
Objectives: The study is designed to compare the benefits of discharge health information technology versus usual care in high-risk patients recently discharged from acute care hospitalization.
STUDY HYPOTHESES:
The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of patients readmitted at least once within 6 months after the index admission. Readmission is for any reason and includes observation status and full admission status.
Primary hypothesis: Among high-risk patients recently discharged from acute care hospitalization, there is a significant decrease in the primary efficacy endpoint for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 1A: In the same patient population, the time to first readmission is greater for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 1B: In the same patient population, the mean number of hospital days per patient within 6 months after index hospital discharge is lower for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 2: In the same patient population, the mean score for effectiveness and satisfaction with discharge process is greater for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 3: In the same patient population, the proportion of patients who report their pharmacist needed to clarify the discharge prescription is lower for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 4: In the same patient population, the proportion of patients with at least one adverse event within 4 weeks after hospital discharge is lower for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 5: In the same population, the mean satisfaction score with drug information will be higher for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 6: Among primary care physicians who provide post-discharge care to high-risk patients, the mean score for discharge process effectiveness and satisfaction will be greater for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 7: Among hospitalist physicians who discharge high-risk patients, the mean score for physicians' satisfaction with the discharge process will be greater for physicians assigned to discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
METHODS: The trial design is a randomized cluster, single-blind (outcome assessors blind), controlled trial. The study design conforms to recent guidelines for randomized controlled trials. The test intervention is discharge application of health information technology. The control intervention is usual care (hand-written discharge instructions) described below. Each patient will remain in the study for 6 months. Enrollment in the study will last approximately 18 months. There will be no interim analysis.
Research personnel will obtain informed consent from potentially eligible inpatients. Informed consent from patients will occur during the screening visit.
Screening visit: Investigators will train research personnel to perform screening and informed consent. The screening visit may occur within 2 days of the planned discharge. After obtaining informed consent, research personnel will record items in the baseline assessment. Research personnel will ask patients about self-rated health, coronary artery disease (including angina pectoris myocardial infarction), diabetes mellitus in past year, hospitalization in past year, number of doctor visits in past year, presence of an informal caregiver able to care for the patient for several days, age, and gender. The screening questionnaire was validated. Research personnel will calculate a PRA score during the screening visit. PRA scores 0.5 and above define high-risk patients who have a 50% probability of being admitted to a hospital two or more times within 4 years. When the PRA score is applied to Medicaid beneficiaries followed for one year, 57% of patients with PRA 0.5 and above will have at least one hospital admission or 0.99 +/- 0.24 hospital admissions per person-year survived (mean +/- SE). Research personnel will offer informed consent to patients with PRA score 0.4 and above.
Research personnel will record limited information for patients who are ineligible or who refuse consent.
Baseline Assessment: The baseline assessment will occur after informed consent and before discharge. The ten-point clock test will be used as the screening instrument for orientation. Research personnel will record patient's name, address, age, stated race, gender, and discharge medication prescription. Research personnel will record patient contact information and alternate contact information in order to perform post-hospital telephone interviews required by the protocol.
Intervention allocation: The time of random treatment allocation will be after the baseline assessment and before discharge. Patients will not receive study treatment if they fail to consent or if they fail the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Treatment assignment will be in a 1:1 ratio to either discharge application of health information technology or usual care discharge instructions. The unit of randomization will be the hospitalist physician who performs the discharge process. The randomization process is designed to assure random allocation by cluster with the cluster determined by the discharging physician. Allocation concealment is not possible since all the enrolled patients who are discharged by the hospitalist physician will receive the same study intervention.
Dispense patient logbook: The purpose of the patient logbook is to promote ascertainment of study endpoints.
Patient telephone interview: discharge process effectiveness and satisfaction The purpose of the first telephone interview is to acquire data to measure secondary endpoints 2, 3, and 5. One week (5 to 9 days) after the hospital discharge date, research personnel will perform a telephone interview with the patient. Interviewers will instruct the patient to avoid mentioning the random intervention assignment. To address secondary hypothesis 2, interview questions will follow the PREPARED text. The PREPARED instrument surveys four key process domains: information exchange (community services and equipment), medication management, preparation for coping after discharge and control of discharge circumstances. The questions in PREPARED measure the patient's overall satisfaction with discharge, whether equipment and community service needs were met, and use of health services and health related costs post-discharge. The telephone interviewers will ask patients if their pharmacist had to call the doctor when attempting to fill the discharge prescriptions. The purpose of the question about pharmacists is to address secondary hypothesis 3. The telephone interviewers will ask questions from the Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS). The SIMS is a 17-item survey with internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The SIMS survey instrument addresses secondary hypothesis 5.
Primary care physician questionnaire: discharge process effectiveness and satisfaction. The primary care physician questionnaire addresses secondary hypothesis 6. Within 10 to 18 days after the hospital discharge date, research personnel will contact the primary care physician to perform a survey.
Patient interview: adverse event assessment. The purpose of the second patient interview is to address secondary hypothesis 4. Approximately 4 weeks (20 to 40 days) after the index hospital discharge date, research physician personnel will perform a telephone interview with the patient. Physicians trained to assess adverse events will perform the telephone interview. Interviewers will instruct the patient to avoid mentioning the random intervention assignment. The interview tool is a modification of a validated survey instrument.
Hospitalist (discharging) physician questionnaire: The purpose of the survey is to address secondary hypothesis 7.
Patient interview: readmission assessment. The purpose of the third patient interview is to ascertain the primary endpoint, secondary endpoints (1A, 1B), and tertiary endpoints. Approximately 6 months (170 to 190 days) after the hospital discharge date, research personnel who are blinded to intervention assignment will perform a telephone interview with the patient. Interviewers will instruct the patient to avoid mentioning the random intervention assignment. Interviewers will ask the patient to consult their patient logbook while answering questions. Interviewers will record the admissions to the hospital, dates of admission, duration of hospital stay, number of outpatient physician visits, and number of emergency department visits that did not result in hospital admission.
Guess treatment assignment by blinded observers: The purpose of the guess is to measure the effectiveness of the blind.
Conditions for Early Withdrawal of Treatment: Patients may terminate study intervention at any time and return to the standard care if they withdraw their consent. If a patient withdraws from the study for any reason, then research personnel will conduct an end-of-study visit.
Sample size determination: The primary analysis is the difference in proportion of patients in the two study groups who achieve the primary efficacy endpoint of readmission within 6 months of discharge. The estimated event rate in the standard therapy group is 37%, which is the control group event rate from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of discharge interventions. The minimum clinically relevant difference, 13%, corresponds to a standardized increment of 28.2% and is the empirical boundary for quantitative significance.
The required sample size for the primary analysis is 275 patients in the group assigned to discharge application of health information technology and 275 patients in the group assigned to control (usual care) therapy. In a previous study of discharge planning, the investigators enrolled 28% (363/1296) of potentially eligible patients. In the same study, 72% (262/363) of enrolled patients completed the 6-month assessment. Our hospitalist service discharges 297 patients per month. We estimate we will screen 5456 patients within 18.37 months. We estimate 50% of screened patients will be potentially eligible according to the Pra criteria. Among potentially eligible patients, we estimate 28% will consent to study enrollment. Therefore, the number of enrolled patients will be 5456 x 50% x 28% = 764. We estimate 72% (550/764) of enrolled patients will continue in the study until the 6-month assessment.
After 3 months of patient enrollment, we found the rate of enrollment was too low to achieve the required sample size. In 2005, we requested and received approval from Agency Healthcare Research Quality and Institutional Review Board to lower patient inclusion criterion, probability or repeat admission (PRA), from 0.50 to 0.40.
- Being tested
- Discharge communication software, Usual care discharge process
- Keywords
- Aged, Hospitalists, Outcome and process assessment (health care), Human, Hospitals, teaching, Physicians, family, Medical records, Quality assurance, health care, Medical errors
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Discharge communication softwareDevice
Also called Discharge assistant, Hospital Information Systems, Medical Records Systems-Computerized, Electronic Discharge Summary
Computerized physician order entry software used by discharging physician
Usual care discharge processOther
Also called Usual care, handwritten
Handwritten
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Discharge communication software | Experimental | Computerized-Physician-Order-Entry software application to facilitate communication at time of hospital discharge to patients, retail pharmacists, community physicians. Software had required fields, pick lists, standard drug doses, alerts, reminders, online reference information. Software prompted discharging physician to enter pending tests, order tests after discharge. Hospital physicians used software on day of discharge to generate four documents automatically: personalized letter to outpatient physician, legible prescriptions, and legible discharge order Receives: Device: Discharge communication software |
| Usual care discharge process | Active comparator | Hospital physicians and ward nurses completed handwritten discharge forms on the day of discharge. The forms contained blanks for discharge diagnoses, discharge medications, medication instructions, post discharge activities and restrictions, post discharge diet, post discharge diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and appointments. Patients received handwritten copies of the forms, one page of which also included medication instructions and prescriptions Receives: Other: Usual care discharge process |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Hospital Readmission, at Least One
Number of participants with at least one readmission within 6 months after discharge from index hospital visit
Measured: within 6 months after discharge
Secondary outcomes (12)
Patients' Perception of Discharge Process, Effectiveness, Satisfaction, Preparedness
Measured: 1 week after discharge
Patients' Perception of Discharge Process, Satisfaction
Measured: 1 week after discharge
Pharmacist Needed to Clarify the Discharge Prescription
Measured: 1 day after discharge
Pharmacist's Satisfaction With Discharge Prescription
Measured: 1 day after discharge
At Least One Adverse Event Within One Month After Discharge
Number of participants with at least one adverse event within one month after discharge
Measured: 1 month after discharge
Patient's Satisfaction With Drug Information
Measured: 1 week after discharge
Primary Care Physician's Perception, Effectiveness
Measured: 10 days after discharge
Primary Care Physician's Perception, Satisfaction
Measured: 10 days after discharge
Discharge Physician Satisfaction With Discharge Process
Measured: 6 months after using discharge process
Number of Outpatient Visits
Measured: within 6 months after discharge
Number of Emergency Department Visits
Number of participants with at least one emergency department visit within six months after discharge
Measured: within 6 months after discharge
Physician Time Spent to Complete the Discharge Application
Measured: averaged over 2 years of patient enrollment
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Jan 2005 (estimated)
- Study startDec 2004
- Primary completionAug 2007
- Study completionAug 2007
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (54)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Information DisseminationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 631 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
- Sponsor type
- US federal agency
- Collaborators
- University of Illinois Chicago
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, james f. graumlich, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
- Investigators
- James F Graumlich, MD, Principal investigator, University of Illinois College of Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00101868
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1R01HS015084-01
- Other IDs
- 1R01HS015084-02
- Status last verified
- Apr 2012
- First submitted
- 14 Jan 2005
- Last updated
- 15 May 2012
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Andersen HE, Schultz-Larsen K, Kreiner S, Forchhammer BH, Eriksen K, Brown A. Can readmission after stroke be prevented? Results of a randomized clinical study: a postdischarge follow-up service for stroke survivors. Stroke. 2000 May;31(5):1038-45. doi: 10.1161/01.str.31.5.1038.
PubMed 10797163Anderson GF, Steinberg EP. Hospital readmissions in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 1984 Nov 22;311(21):1349-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198411223112105.
PubMed 6436703Shepperd S, Parkes J, McClaren J, Phillips C. Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD000313. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000313.pub2.
PubMed 14973952Beers MH, Sliwkowski J, Brooks J. Compliance with medication orders among the elderly after hospital discharge. Hosp Formul. 1992 Jul;27(7):720-4.
PubMed 10119187Brook RH, Appel FA, Avery C, Orman M, Stevenson RL. Effectiveness of inpatient follow-up care. N Engl J Med. 1971 Dec 30;285(27):1509-14. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197112302852705. No abstract available.
PubMed 4331354Burnand B, Kernan WN, Feinstein AR. Indexes and boundaries for "quantitative significance" in statistical decisions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(12):1273-84. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90093-5.
PubMed 2254764Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
PubMed 3558716Corrigan JM, Martin JB. Identification of factors associated with hospital readmission and development of a predictive model. Health Serv Res. 1992 Apr;27(1):81-101.
PubMed 1563955Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;45(6):613-9. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8.
PubMed 1607900Donner A, Birkett N, Buck C. Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1981 Dec;114(6):906-14. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113261. No abstract available.
PubMed 7315838Donner A, Donald A. Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with the cluster as unit of randomization. Stat Med. 1987 Jan-Feb;6(1):43-52. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780060106.
PubMed 3576016Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):416-22. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.416.
PubMed 14998805Forster AJ, Murff HJ, Peterson JF, Gandhi TK, Bates DW. The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):161-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00007.
PubMed 12558354Foster DS, Paterson C, Fairfield G. Evaluation of immediate discharge documents--room for improvement? Scott Med J. 2002 Aug;47(4):77-9. doi: 10.1177/003693300204700402.
PubMed 12235913Grimmer K, Moss J. The development, validity and application of a new instrument to assess the quality of discharge planning activities from the community perspective. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Apr;13(2):109-16. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/13.2.109.
PubMed 11430660
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 May 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Value of Technology to Transfer Discharge Information
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00101868
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1R01HS015084-01
- Keywords
- Aged, Hospitalists, Outcome and process assessment (health care), Human, Hospitals, teaching, Physicians, family, Medical records, Quality assurance, health care
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 631 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)US federal agency
- Collaborators
- University of Illinois Chicago
- Study start
- Dec 2004
- Primary completion
- Aug 2007 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2007 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Jan 2005 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 15 May 2012
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The transition from hospital to home is a high-risk period in a patient's illness. Poor communication between healthcare providers at hospital discharge is common and contributes to adverse events affecting patients after discharge. The importance of good communication at discharge will increase as more primary care providers delegate inpatient care to hospitalists. Any process that improves information transfer among providers at discharge might improve the health and safety of patients discharged from U.S. hospitals each year, and to appreciably reduce unnecessary healthcare expenditures. Information transfer among healthcare providers and their patients can be undermined because of inaccuracies, omissions, illegibility, logistical failure (e.g., information is never delivered), and delays in generation (i.e., dictation or transcription) or transmission. Root causes include recall error, increased physician workloads, interface failures (e.g., physician-clerical) and poor training of physicians in the discharge process. Many of the deficiencies in the current process of information transfer at hospital discharge could be effectively addressed by the application of information technology. The proposed study will measure the value of a software application to facilitate information transfer at hospital discharge. The study is designed to compare the benefits of discharge health information technology versus usual care in high-risk patients recently discharged from acute care hospitalization. The design is a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. The outcomes are readmission within 6 months, adverse events, and effectiveness and satisfaction with the discharge process from the patient and physician perspectives. The cost outcome is the physician time required to use the discharge software.
Detailed description
Objectives: The study is designed to compare the benefits of discharge health information technology versus usual care in high-risk patients recently discharged from acute care hospitalization.
STUDY HYPOTHESES:
The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of patients readmitted at least once within 6 months after the index admission. Readmission is for any reason and includes observation status and full admission status.
Primary hypothesis: Among high-risk patients recently discharged from acute care hospitalization, there is a significant decrease in the primary efficacy endpoint for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 1A: In the same patient population, the time to first readmission is greater for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 1B: In the same patient population, the mean number of hospital days per patient within 6 months after index hospital discharge is lower for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 2: In the same patient population, the mean score for effectiveness and satisfaction with discharge process is greater for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 3: In the same patient population, the proportion of patients who report their pharmacist needed to clarify the discharge prescription is lower for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 4: In the same patient population, the proportion of patients with at least one adverse event within 4 weeks after hospital discharge is lower for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 5: In the same population, the mean satisfaction score with drug information will be higher for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 6: Among primary care physicians who provide post-discharge care to high-risk patients, the mean score for discharge process effectiveness and satisfaction will be greater for patients who receive discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
Secondary hypothesis 7: Among hospitalist physicians who discharge high-risk patients, the mean score for physicians' satisfaction with the discharge process will be greater for physicians assigned to discharge health information technology versus usual care discharge instructions.
METHODS: The trial design is a randomized cluster, single-blind (outcome assessors blind), controlled trial. The study design conforms to recent guidelines for randomized controlled trials. The test intervention is discharge application of health information technology. The control intervention is usual care (hand-written discharge instructions) described below. Each patient will remain in the study for 6 months. Enrollment in the study will last approximately 18 months. There will be no interim analysis.
Research personnel will obtain informed consent from potentially eligible inpatients. Informed consent from patients will occur during the screening visit.
Screening visit: Investigators will train research personnel to perform screening and informed consent. The screening visit may occur within 2 days of the planned discharge. After obtaining informed consent, research personnel will record items in the baseline assessment. Research personnel will ask patients about self-rated health, coronary artery disease (including angina pectoris myocardial infarction), diabetes mellitus in past year, hospitalization in past year, number of doctor visits in past year, presence of an informal caregiver able to care for the patient for several days, age, and gender. The screening questionnaire was validated. Research personnel will calculate a PRA score during the screening visit. PRA scores 0.5 and above define high-risk patients who have a 50% probability of being admitted to a hospital two or more times within 4 years. When the PRA score is applied to Medicaid beneficiaries followed for one year, 57% of patients with PRA 0.5 and above will have at least one hospital admission or 0.99 +/- 0.24 hospital admissions per person-year survived (mean +/- SE). Research personnel will offer informed consent to patients with PRA score 0.4 and above.
Research personnel will record limited information for patients who are ineligible or who refuse consent.
Baseline Assessment: The baseline assessment will occur after informed consent and before discharge. The ten-point clock test will be used as the screening instrument for orientation. Research personnel will record patient's name, address, age, stated race, gender, and discharge medication prescription. Research personnel will record patient contact information and alternate contact information in order to perform post-hospital telephone interviews required by the protocol.
Intervention allocation: The time of random treatment allocation will be after the baseline assessment and before discharge. Patients will not receive study treatment if they fail to consent or if they fail the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Treatment assignment will be in a 1:1 ratio to either discharge application of health information technology or usual care discharge instructions. The unit of randomization will be the hospitalist physician who performs the discharge process. The randomization process is designed to assure random allocation by cluster with the cluster determined by the discharging physician. Allocation concealment is not possible since all the enrolled patients who are discharged by the hospitalist physician will receive the same study intervention.
Dispense patient logbook: The purpose of the patient logbook is to promote ascertainment of study endpoints.
Patient telephone interview: discharge process effectiveness and satisfaction The purpose of the first telephone interview is to acquire data to measure secondary endpoints 2, 3, and 5. One week (5 to 9 days) after the hospital discharge date, research personnel will perform a telephone interview with the patient. Interviewers will instruct the patient to avoid mentioning the random intervention assignment. To address secondary hypothesis 2, interview questions will follow the PREPARED text. The PREPARED instrument surveys four key process domains: information exchange (community services and equipment), medication management, preparation for coping after discharge and control of discharge circumstances. The questions in PREPARED measure the patient's overall satisfaction with discharge, whether equipment and community service needs were met, and use of health services and health related costs post-discharge. The telephone interviewers will ask patients if their pharmacist had to call the doctor when attempting to fill the discharge prescriptions. The purpose of the question about pharmacists is to address secondary hypothesis 3. The telephone interviewers will ask questions from the Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS). The SIMS is a 17-item survey with internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The SIMS survey instrument addresses secondary hypothesis 5.
Primary care physician questionnaire: discharge process effectiveness and satisfaction. The primary care physician questionnaire addresses secondary hypothesis 6. Within 10 to 18 days after the hospital discharge date, research personnel will contact the primary care physician to perform a survey.
Patient interview: adverse event assessment. The purpose of the second patient interview is to address secondary hypothesis 4. Approximately 4 weeks (20 to 40 days) after the index hospital discharge date, research physician personnel will perform a telephone interview with the patient. Physicians trained to assess adverse events will perform the telephone interview. Interviewers will instruct the patient to avoid mentioning the random intervention assignment. The interview tool is a modification of a validated survey instrument.
Hospitalist (discharging) physician questionnaire: The purpose of the survey is to address secondary hypothesis 7.
Patient interview: readmission assessment. The purpose of the third patient interview is to ascertain the primary endpoint, secondary endpoints (1A, 1B), and tertiary endpoints. Approximately 6 months (170 to 190 days) after the hospital discharge date, research personnel who are blinded to intervention assignment will perform a telephone interview with the patient. Interviewers will instruct the patient to avoid mentioning the random intervention assignment. Interviewers will ask the patient to consult their patient logbook while answering questions. Interviewers will record the admissions to the hospital, dates of admission, duration of hospital stay, number of outpatient physician visits, and number of emergency department visits that did not result in hospital admission.
Guess treatment assignment by blinded observers: The purpose of the guess is to measure the effectiveness of the blind.
Conditions for Early Withdrawal of Treatment: Patients may terminate study intervention at any time and return to the standard care if they withdraw their consent. If a patient withdraws from the study for any reason, then research personnel will conduct an end-of-study visit.
Sample size determination: The primary analysis is the difference in proportion of patients in the two study groups who achieve the primary efficacy endpoint of readmission within 6 months of discharge. The estimated event rate in the standard therapy group is 37%, which is the control group event rate from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of discharge interventions. The minimum clinically relevant difference, 13%, corresponds to a standardized increment of 28.2% and is the empirical boundary for quantitative significance.
The required sample size for the primary analysis is 275 patients in the group assigned to discharge application of health information technology and 275 patients in the group assigned to control (usual care) therapy. In a previous study of discharge planning, the investigators enrolled 28% (363/1296) of potentially eligible patients. In the same study, 72% (262/363) of enrolled patients completed the 6-month assessment. Our hospitalist service discharges 297 patients per month. We estimate we will screen 5456 patients within 18.37 months. We estimate 50% of screened patients will be potentially eligible according to the Pra criteria. Among potentially eligible patients, we estimate 28% will consent to study enrollment. Therefore, the number of enrolled patients will be 5456 x 50% x 28% = 764. We estimate 72% (550/764) of enrolled patients will continue in the study until the 6-month assessment.
After 3 months of patient enrollment, we found the rate of enrollment was too low to achieve the required sample size. In 2005, we requested and received approval from Agency Healthcare Research Quality and Institutional Review Board to lower patient inclusion criterion, probability or repeat admission (PRA), from 0.50 to 0.40.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Discharge communication software | Experimental | Device: Discharge communication softwareComputerized-Physician-Order-Entry software application to facilitate communication at time of hospital discharge to patients, retail pharmacists, community physicians. Software had required fields, pick lists, standard drug doses, alerts, reminders, online reference information. Software prompted discharging physician to enter pending tests, order tests after discharge. Hospital physicians used software on day of discharge to generate four documents automatically: personalized letter to outpatient physician, legible prescriptions, and legible discharge order |
| Usual care discharge process | Active comparator | Other: Usual care discharge processHospital physicians and ward nurses completed handwritten discharge forms on the day of discharge. The forms contained blanks for discharge diagnoses, discharge medications, medication instructions, post discharge activities and restrictions, post discharge diet, post discharge diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, and appointments. Patients received handwritten copies of the forms, one page of which also included medication instructions and prescriptions |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Inpatients at OSF Saint Francis Medical Center
- Discharged by the hospitalist service or other inpatient services
- High risk for poor post-discharge outcomes defined as probability of readmission (PRA) 0.4 or above
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Less than 18 years old
- Unwilling or unable to provide written consent
- Life expectancy less than 6 months
- Will receive outpatient care from a primary care physician who is the same as the discharging physician
- Do not speak English or Spanish
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Discharge communication softwareAlso: Discharge assistant, Hospital Information Systems, Medical Records Systems-Computerized, Electronic Discharge SummaryComputerized physician order entry software used by discharging physician | Device | Discharge communication software |
| Usual care discharge processAlso: Usual care, handwrittenHandwritten | Other | Usual care discharge process |
Primary outcome
Hospital Readmission, at Least One
Time frame: within 6 months after discharge
Number of participants with at least one readmission within 6 months after discharge from index hospital visit
12 secondary outcomes
Patients' Perception of Discharge Process, Effectiveness, Satisfaction, Preparedness
Time frame: 1 week after discharge
Patients' Perception of Discharge Process, Satisfaction
Time frame: 1 week after discharge
Pharmacist Needed to Clarify the Discharge Prescription
Time frame: 1 day after discharge
Pharmacist's Satisfaction With Discharge Prescription
Time frame: 1 day after discharge
At Least One Adverse Event Within One Month After Discharge
Time frame: 1 month after discharge
Patient's Satisfaction With Drug Information
Time frame: 1 week after discharge
Primary Care Physician's Perception, Effectiveness
Time frame: 10 days after discharge
Primary Care Physician's Perception, Satisfaction
Time frame: 10 days after discharge
Discharge Physician Satisfaction With Discharge Process
Time frame: 6 months after using discharge process
Number of Outpatient Visits
Time frame: within 6 months after discharge
Number of Emergency Department Visits
Time frame: within 6 months after discharge
Physician Time Spent to Complete the Discharge Application
Time frame: averaged over 2 years of patient enrollment
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 May 2012.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 10797163Andersen HE, Schultz-Larsen K, Kreiner S, Forchhammer BH, Eriksen K, Brown A. Can readmission after stroke be prevented? Results of a randomized clinical study: a postdischarge follow-up service for stroke survivors. Stroke. 2000 May;31(5):1038-45. doi: 10.1161/01.str.31.5.1038.
- Background: PubMed 6436703Anderson GF, Steinberg EP. Hospital readmissions in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 1984 Nov 22;311(21):1349-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198411223112105.
- Background: PubMed 14973952Shepperd S, Parkes J, McClaren J, Phillips C. Discharge planning from hospital to home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD000313. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000313.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 10119187Beers MH, Sliwkowski J, Brooks J. Compliance with medication orders among the elderly after hospital discharge. Hosp Formul. 1992 Jul;27(7):720-4.
- Background: PubMed 4331354Brook RH, Appel FA, Avery C, Orman M, Stevenson RL. Effectiveness of inpatient follow-up care. N Engl J Med. 1971 Dec 30;285(27):1509-14. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197112302852705. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 2254764Burnand B, Kernan WN, Feinstein AR. Indexes and boundaries for "quantitative significance" in statistical decisions. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(12):1273-84. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90093-5.
- Background: PubMed 3558716Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
- Background: PubMed 1563955Corrigan JM, Martin JB. Identification of factors associated with hospital readmission and development of a predictive model. Health Serv Res. 1992 Apr;27(1):81-101.
- Background: PubMed 1607900Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Jun;45(6):613-9. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8.
- Background: PubMed 7315838Donner A, Birkett N, Buck C. Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1981 Dec;114(6):906-14. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113261. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 3576016Donner A, Donald A. Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with the cluster as unit of randomization. Stat Med. 1987 Jan-Feb;6(1):43-52. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780060106.
- Background: PubMed 14998805Donner A, Klar N. Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):416-22. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.416.
Related trials for Information Dissemination
Recruiting
Implementation of a Caregiver-Report Suicide-Risk Screener in Children Under Age 8 in a Behavioral Health Center
Information Dissemination
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
James F Graumlich, MD principal investigator
University of Illinois College of Medicine
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Discharge communication software in people with Information Dissemination and Interprofessional Relations, run by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 May 2012. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 15 May 2012). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Hospital Readmission, at Least One (time frame: within 6 months after discharge). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00101868, which also lists 54 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 May 2012; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.