gms | German Medical Science

11. Jahrestagung 2004 der GAA

Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie

30.09. bis 01.10.2004, Jena

Reporting the discharge medication in the discharge letter: an explorative survey of family doctors

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • corresponding author presenting/speaker S. Harder - Institute of Clinical Pharmacology at the pharmazentrum frankfurt, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital Frankfurt am Main
  • A. Roth-Isigkeit - Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Germany

Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie (GAA) e.V.. 11. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie (GAA) e.V.. Jena, 30.09.-01.10.2004. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc04gaa17

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter:

Veröffentlicht: 30. September 2004

© 2004 Harder et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen ( Er darf vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.



Background and Aim

In Germany, the discharge medication is usually reported to the general practitioner (GP) by an inital short report (SR) /notification (handed over to the patient) and later by a more detailed discharge letter (DL) of the hospital.

Material and Method

We asked N=536 GPs (from Frankfurt/Main and Luebeck) after the typical report format of their patients discharge medication by the local hospitals. The questionnaire asked for 26 items covering (1) the designation of the medication (brand name, generic name) in SR and DL, (2) further specifications e.g. possibilities of generic substitution or supervision of sensible medications, (3) reasons why GPs do not follow the hospitals recommendations and (4) possibilities for an improvement in the medication-related communication between GP and hospitals.


39% GPs responded sufficiently to the questionnaire. The majority of the GPs (82%) quoted that in the SR only brand names are given (often or ever) and neither the generic name or any further information on generic substitution is available (seldom or never). 65% of the responders quoted that even in the DL only brand names are given. Only 41% of the responders quoted that further treatment relevant specifications are given (often or ever). 95% responded that new medications or change of custom medication is seldom or never explained in the DL and GP were not explicitly informed about relevant medication changes. 58% of the responders quoted economic reasons for re-adjustment of the discharge medication e.g. by generic substitution. The majority of responders (83%) are favouring (useful or very useful) a pre-discharge information (e.g. via fax) about the medication and 54% a hot-line to some relevant person in the hospital when treatment problems emerge. 67% of the responders quoted in favour of regular meetings between GPs and hospital doctors regarding actual pharmacotherapy.


In conclusion, our survey pointed to marked deficiencies in reporting the discharge medication to GPs.

Conflict of interest: None