The medical discharge letter is an important communication tool between hospitals and other healthcare providers. Despite its high status, it often does not meet the desired requirements in everyday clinical practice. Occurring risks create barriers for patients and doctors. This present review summarizes risks of the medical discharge letter. The research question was answered with a systematic literature research and results were summarized narratively. A literature search in the databases PubMed and Cochrane Library for Studies between January 2008 and May 2018 was performed. Two authors reviewed the full texts of potentially relevant studies to determine eligibility for inclusion. Literature on possible risks associated with the medical discharge letter was discussed. In total, 29 studies were included in this review. The major identified risk factors are the delayed sending of the discharge letter to doctors for further treatments, unintelligible (not patient-centered) medical discharge letters, low quality of the discharge letter, and lack of information as well as absence of training in writing medical discharge letters during medical education. Multiple risks factors are associated with the medical discharge letter. There is a need for further research to improve the quality of the medical discharge letter to minimize risks and increase patients’ safety.

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have a high risk of developing malnutrition, and this is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. In clinical practice, nutrition, including enteral nutrition (EN), is often not prioritized. Resulting from this, risks and safety issues for patients and healthcare professionals can emerge. The aim of this literature review, inspired by the Rapid Review Guidebook by Dobbins, 2017, was to identify risks and safety issues for patient safety in the management of EN in critically ill patients in the ICU. Three databases were used to identify studies between 2009 and 2020. We assessed 3495 studies for eligibility and included 62 in our narrative synthesis. Several risks and problems were identified: No use of clinical assessment or screening nutrition assessment, inadequate tube management, missing energy target, missing a nutritionist, bad hygiene and handling, wrong time management and speed, nutritional interruptions, wrong body position, gastrointestinal complication and infections, missing or not using guidelines, understaffing, and lack of education. Raising awareness of these risks is a central aspect in patient safety in ICU. Clinical experts can use a checklist with 12 identified top risks and the recommendations drawn up to carry out their own risk analysis in clinical practice.

Background: “Speaking up” is considered an important patient safety behaviour. The main idea is to voice patient safety concerns; however, several studies revealed that the organisational culture can be obstructive. In previous studies, we already identified barriers for doctors, nurses and medical students. In the current study, we explore how nursing students use “speaking up” during their internship in an academic teaching hospital. Methods: Between 2019 and 2020, 212 nursing students were invited to take part in the survey. The validated Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (SUPS-Q) was used to assess speaking up behaviours in nursing students. The SUPS-Q consisted of three behaviour related scales (11 items), three culture related scales (11 items), a question regarding barriers to speak up as well as a clinical vignette assessing a hypothetical speaking up situation. Results: In total, 118 nursing students took part in the survey (response rate: 56%). Most of them noticed specific safety concerns, observed errors or rule violations. The vignette was seen as very realistic and harmful to the patient. However, the majority responded that they did not speak up and remained silent. They reported a rather discouraging environment and high levels of resignation towards speaking up. However, more advanced students were less likely to speak up than less advanced students (p = 0.027). Most relevant barriers were fear of negative reaction (64%), reaction not predictable (62%) and ineffectiveness (42%). Conclusions: Survey results of nursing students imply that speaking-up behaviours and remaining silent are common behaviours and coexist in the same individual. The clinical vignette and barriers to speaking up revealed that a hierarchical system does not support speaking-up behaviours. Organizational development is needed to foster professional teamwork, support attentive listening, encourage critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

Zusammenfassung: Hintergrund: Angehörige von kritisch Kranken auf der Intensivstation („intensive care unit“, ICU) sind in einer herausfordernden Situation: Sie befinden sich häufig in einer existenziellen Krise mit einer großen emotionalen Belastung, gleichzeitig sind sie oftmals aktiv in therapeutische Entscheidungen mit eingebunden. Die Besuchsrestriktionen während der Pandemie aufgrund der Coronaviruserkrankung 2019 (COVID-19) haben viele Rahmenbedingungen für die Angehörigenbegleitung geändert und so die Betreuung von Angehörigen schwieriger gemacht. Ziel: Ziel der Publikation ist die Darstellung der aktuellen und neuen Entwicklungen in der Angehörigenbegleitung von kritisch Kranken auf Intensivstationen im Rahmen einer narrativen Übersichtsarbeit. Ergebnisse: In den letzten Jahren wurden zahlreiche Maßnahmen und Projekte zur Angehörigenbegleitung entwickelt, die sich den folgenden 6 Bereichen zuordnen lassen: 1) Anwesenheit der Angehörigen, 2) proaktive Einbindung in die Betreuung, 3) strukturierte Kommunikation und Information sowie Onlineangebote, 4) multidisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit, 5) Aufgaben der Organisationsleitung und 6) Follow-up-Angebote. Die Evidenz und der derzeitige Implementierungsstand der Maßnahmen sind international und national sehr heterogen. Schlussfolgerungen: Maßnahmen zur Angehörigenbetreuung sind vielfältig und können zum Teil auch unter Besuchsrestriktionen umgesetzt werden. Neuere Entwicklungen im digitalen Bereich ermöglichen zunehmend auch virtuelle Besuche und einen ergänzenden Informationsaustausch zwischen dem Team der ICU und den Angehörigen.

Rationale and objective: The discharge summary (DS) is one of the most important instruments to transmit information to the treating general physician (GP). The objective of this study was to analyse important components of DS, structural characteristics as well as medical and general abbreviations.Method: One hundred randomly selected DS from five different clinics were evaluated by five independent reviewers regarding content, structure, abbreviations and conformity to the Austrian Electronic Health Records (ELGA) using a structured case report form. Abbreviations of all 100 DS were extracted. All items were scored on a 4‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (or “not relevant”). Subsequently, the results were discussed among reviewers to achieve a consensus decision.Results: The mandatory fields, reason for admission and diagnosis at discharge were present in 80% and 98% of DS. The last medication was fully scored in 48% and the recommended medication in 94% of 100 DS. There were significant overall differences among clinics for nine mandatory items. In total, 750 unexplained abbreviations were found in 100 DS.Conclusions: In conclusion, DS are often lacking important items. Particularly important are a detailed medication history and recommendations for further medication that should always be listed in each DS. It is thus necessary to design and implement changes that improve the completeness of DS. An important quality improvement can be achieved by avoiding the use of ambiguous abbreviations.

Objectives The discharge summary (DS) represents one of the most important instruments to ensure a safe patient discharge from the hospital. They sometimes have poor quality in content and often include medical jargon, which the patient and their relatives cannot easily understand. Therefore, many risks for patient safety exist. This study investigated the questions for whom the DS is and which contents are necessary to ensure a safe treatment. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting Styria, Austria. Participants 3948 internal and external physicians were consulted. Interventions An online survey consisting of 24 questions was conducted. The survey was distributed to physicians working in the province of Styria, Austria, in 2018 over a period of 6 months. Main outcomes and measures Attitudes of internal and external physicians in terms of target group, content and health literacy. Results In total, 1060 physicians participated in the survey. The DS is considered as a communication tool among physicians (97.9%) and the patients are also indicated as addressees (73.5%). Furthermore, there is a high level of agreement that understandable information in the DS leads to fewer questions of the patients (67.9%). Conclusion In conclusion, the DS is not only seen as a document for the further treating physician but is also relevant for the patient. Incorporating the patient into their treatment at all levels may possibly strengthen the individual health literacy of the patient and their caring relatives.