The objective of this study is to understand patients’ perspectives about system-based barriers that may influence decision-making regarding following discharge instructions. In this qualitative study, subjects were interviewed by phone 1–4 weeks following being discharged to home from the emergency department (ED). We used a semi-structured interview guide to ask a series of open-ended questions about subjects’ recent ED visit and subsequent course, including discharge instructions, whether or not they complied with those instructions, and reasoning behind their decisions to follow-up or not. All interviews were recorded and transcribed to identify themes among the transcripts, which were analyzed to identify barriers to compliance. While the majority of those interviewed expressed no specific concerns or challenges, four system-based themes did emerge regarding patient attitudes toward and experiences with discharge instructions. They were: (1) failure to ensure clarity about diagnosis at the time of discharge from the ED, (2) failure to identify patients’ feelings of hopelessness regarding the utility of follow-up, (3) difficulty in scheduling follow-up appointments, and (4) the importance of a clear discharge process. This study finds several system-based barriers might influence compliance. The four identified themes suggest a recurring cycle of visiting the ED, being discharged to primary care or specialists, and ultimately returning to the ED. We propose that systems-based interventions may help to break this cycle.
Patient compliance Emergency department Qualitative study
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors would like to thank Nancy Campbell, RN, and her research project team for the assistance in the planning and conduction of this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.
Human and animal rights statement
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Kyriacou DN, Handel D, Stein AC et al (2005) Brief report: factors affecting outpatient follow-up compliance of emergency department patients. J Gen Intern Med 20:938–942CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Arora S, Burner E, Terp S et al (2014) Improving attendance at post-emergency department follow-up via automated text message appointment reminders: a randomized control trial. Acad Emerg Med 22(1):31–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Weiner JB, Nagurney JT, Brown DFM et al (2014) Duration of symptoms and follow-up patterns of patients discharged from the emergency department after presenting with abdominal or flank pain. Fam Pract 21(3):314–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atzema CL, Maclagan LC (2017) The transition of care between emergency department and primary care: a scoping study. Acad Emerg Med 24(2):201–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
McCarthy ML, Hirshon JM, Ruggles RL et al (2002) Referral of medically uninsured emergency department patients to primary care. Acad Emerg Med 9:639–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Qureshi R, Asha SE, Zahra M, Howell S (2012) Factors associated with failure to follow up with a general practitioner after discharge from the emergency department. Emerg Med Aust 24:604–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gignon M, Ammirati C, Mercier R et al (2014) Compliance with emergency department discharge instructions. J Emerg Nurs 40(1):51–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Creswell JW, Creswell JD (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th edn. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
Crotty M (1998) The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
Bowen GA (2008) Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual Res 8:138–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar