Calidad de los informes de alta hospitalaria respecto a la legislación vigente y las recomendaciones consensuadas por expertos

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objetivos: Conocer la calidad de los informes de alta hospitalaria respecto a la legislación vigente y el consenso para la elaboración de informes de alta hospitalaria en especialidades médicas en 11 hospitales de Andalucía. Material y métodos: Estudio transversal de 1708 informes de alta hospitalaria. Analizamos la presencia o no de los diferentes ítems requeridos tanto por la legislación actual como por las recomendaciones del consenso. Resultados: El 97,4% (intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC95%]: 96,5-98,2) de los informes de alta hospitalaria fueron catalogados como adecuados si nos ajustamos a los requisitos que contempla la legislación vigente. Si la evaluación era respecto al consenso, el porcentaje de adecuación descendía al 72,1% (IC95%:70,0-74,3). Destaca la ausencia de la duración del tratamiento tras el alta en el 39,4% de los informes. Conclusiones: Los informes de alta hospitalaria ofrecen un excelente grado de cumplimentación de los datos exigidos por la normativa vigente, pero deben mejorar en su calidad intrínseca.

Translated abstract

Objective: To determine the quality of hospital discharge reports (HDRs) taking into account current legislation and the conclusions of the consensus on hospital discharge reports in medical specialities in 11 community hospitals in Andalusia (Spain). Material and methods: A cross-sectional study of 1,708 HDRs was carried out. We determined the presence or absence of the various items required by current legislation and by the recommendations of the above-mentioned consensus. Results: A total of 97.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 96.5-98.2) of the HDRs were classified as satisfactory according to the stipulations of current legislation. However, when the assessment was based on the consensus, the rate of adequacy fell to 72.1% (95% CI: 70.0-74.3). A notable finding was the absence of the duration of treatment after hospital discharge in 39.4% of the HDRs. Conclusions: HDRs show an excellent level of compliance with the data required by current regulations, but their intrinsic quality needs to be improved.

Related collections

Most cited references 14

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Hospital discharge records under-report the prevalence of diabetes in inpatients.

Florentino Carral, Gabriel Olveira, Manuel Aguilar … (2003)

The objective of our study was to estimate the hospital inpatient prevalence of diabetes mellitus in a Spanish tertiary care teaching hospital. We analyzed a cohort of 1036 patients consecutively admitted over a 7-day period to our hospital. We classified this total of hospitalized patients based on information obtained from individual analysis of medical history and values of plasma glucose after fasting, into groups with the following conditions: recognized diabetes, unrecognized diabetes, other hyperglycaemic situations, impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or non diabetes. One hundred and seventy-eight patients were estimated to have diabetes (total prevalence: 17.2%), including 158 patients with recognized diabetes and 20 patients with diabetes unrecognized before admission. Additionally, 25 patients were considered to have other hyperglycaemic situations and 20 patients were estimated to have IFG. The mean age of the diabetic patients was 65+/-13.7 years (50.5% men), and 94.4% had type 2 diabetes. Diabetes disproportionately affects the elderly inpatient, with a prevalence of 30.9% in people older than 64 years. Of the total number of patients with diabetes, only 144 (diabetes prevalence: 13.8%) were registered in hospital discharge records as having diabetes. We conclude that the extent of hospital diabetes prevalence considerably exceeds levels reported in the literature, suggesting that true diabetes prevalence in hospitals could be significantly under-reported, resulting in a serious underestimate of required expenditures.