Search

In the spring of 1998, 16 general practitioners and 16 community psychiatric nurses participated in a study to test a draft set of headings for communicating clinical summaries. Eight anonymized psychiatric discharge summaries were used to assess the impact of the presentational format on the time taken by professionals to read the summaries and to answer a series of standard questions about each of them. Respondents also completed a questionnaire on their opinions of the headings. There was considerable variation between individuals in the times taken to read the summaries and answer the questions, but no evidence that any of the formats was associated with decreased reading time or with improvement in retrieving information. Most respondents preferred information structured using the headings rather than the original semi-structured discharge summaries, and information on paper rather than on computer screen. Respondents were guardedly supportive of the particular draft headings presented. A weak preference was expressed for locally defined headings, with some recognition of advantages in widely agreed headings. There was a view that there were too many headings, and there was overlap between specific heading pairs (for example, ‘aim’ and ‘goal’). Concerns were expressed about specific headings, particularly the ‘softer’ headings, such as ‘informing’ and ‘communicating’.