Introduction: Discharge communication in the pediatric emergency department (ED) is an important aspect of successful transition home for patients and families. The content, process, and pattern of discharge communication in a pediatric ED encounter has yet to be comprehensively explored. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize elements and patterns of discharge communication occurring during pediatric ED visits between health care providers (HCPs) and families. Methods: We analyzed real time video observations (N = 53) of children (0-18) presenting to two Canadian pediatric EDs with fever or minor head injury. We used a revised version of an existing coding scheme, PEDICSv2, to code all encounters. PEDICSv2 includes 32 elements capturing discharge communication. Inter-rater reliability was established with a second coder. Descriptive statistics reflecting the rates of delivery of each communication content element was reported to assess repetition at four stages of the visit (introduction/planning, actions/interventions, diagnosis/home management plan and summary/conclusion). Communication content was analyzed to depict behaviors of individual HCPs and the total communication delivered to the patient and caregiver by the healthcare team. Results: Results show 55.6% of families were asked to repeat their main concern by multiple HCPs during their ED visit. However, only 14.8% of families had comprehension of delivered discharge information assessed by more than one HCP. When involved in care, physicians were the most likely HCP to perform a comprehension assessment. Most of the communication delivered by nursing staff were elements involved in the introduction/planning and action/intervention stages of the visit. Conclusion: Findings indicate that most repetition occurs while eliciting a main concern during the introduction and planning stage of a pediatric ED encounter. In contrast, communication elements focusing on understanding the home management plan are less likely to be repeated by multiple HCPs. Future work focusing on structuring team workflow to minimize repetition during the introduction and planning stage may allow for clearer discharge teaching and more frequent comprehension assessment.

Introduction: Discharge communication in the emergency department occurs frequently and has been identified as an important, underestimated problem. Tools, such as patient or caregiver-held passports have been used in other departments to improve communication and facilitate provider and patient decision making. The objective of this review was to identify what modalities, methods and designs have been used and evaluated when implementing a communication tool or passport type document in the emergency department setting. Methods: This review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. Iterative steps included identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, data extraction and synthesis. Keywords and indexed terms were used to search PubMed, Cinahl, Embase and Web of Science. The reference list of all identified reports and articles from that search were reviewed for additional studies and a hand search of the last 5 years of Annals of Emergency Medicine and the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine was completed. Inclusion criteria were set to select studies investigating either patients, caregivers or health care providers use of passports, communication documents or journals with the goal of improving any aspect of communication in the emergency department setting. Results: Of the 81 potential publications screened, only 4 met inclusion criteria for extraction. 1 reviewed a passport that aimed at pediatric pain management in settings that include the emergency department, 2 of the publications reported on the same project which developed a passport for asthma patients and 1 discussed a passport for patients with learning disabilities. All the included publications were published in and discuss passports that were developed for use in the UK. Descriptions of implementation, evaluation and perception of the passports in these publications was limited. Conclusion: This scoping review has revealed a major gap in the current literature on communication tools in the emergency department, a department where communication, especially about discharge is of utmost importance. The included studies focused on very different patient populations and aim to improve different outcomes and therefore dont allow us to make for passports aimed at helping the general emergency department population.

Introduction: Optimal discharge communication between healthcare providers and parents who present to the emergency department (ED) with their children is not well understood. Current research regarding discharge communication is equivocal and predominantly focused on evaluating different delivery formats or strategies with little attention given to communication behaviours or the context in which the communication occurs. The objective of this study was to characterize the process and structure of discharge communication in a pediatric ED context. Methods: Real-time video observation and follow-up surveys were used in two academic pediatric EDs in Canada. Parents who presented with their child to the ED with one of six illness presentations, a Canadian Triage Acuity Score of 3-5 were eligible to participate. All ED physicians, learners, and staff members were also eligible. Provider-parent communication was analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) to code each utterance. Parent health literacy and anxiety were measured upon admission to the ED. Parent recall of important discharge information and satisfaction with communication was assessed within 72 hours of discharge. Results: A total of 107 ED patient visits were video recorded and a total of 70,000 utterances were coded across six illness presentations: abdominal pain (n=23), asthma (n=7), bronchiolitis (n=4), diarrhea/vomiting (n=20), fever (n=27), and minor head injury (n=26). The average length of stay for participants was 3 hours, with an average of three provider interactions per visit. Interactions ranged in time from less than one minute up to 29 minutes, with an average of six minutes per interaction. The majority of visits were first episodes for the presenting illness (63.2%). Physician utterances coded most commonly involved giving medical information (22.9%), whereas nurses most commonly gave orientation instructions (20.9%). Learners were most likely to employ active listening techniques (14.2%). Communication that provided post-discharge instructions for parents comprised 8.5% of all utterances. Overall, providers infrequently assessed parental understanding of information (2.0%). Only 26% of parents recalled receiving important discharge information deemed relevant to their childs disposition. Yet, parent satisfaction with the amount of information communicated during the ED visit was generally high (89.6% agreed or strongly agreed). Conclusion: This is the first study of ED discharge communication to be conducted in a pediatric setting using video observation methods. Provider-parent communication was predominantly characterized by giving medical information, with little time devoted to preparing families to care for their child at home. Greater assessment of parent comprehension of discharge communication is needed to ensure that parents understand important instructions and know when to seek further care.