4CPS-013 Merging the medication reconciliation and the hospitalisation report to form the liaison letter in a department of otolaryngology

Background and importanceSince 1 January 2017, the liaison letter (LL) has been mandatory (Decree No. 2016–995, 2016). To optimise patient care and allow better coordination between health professionals we wanted to merge the hospitalisation report (HR) and the medication reconciliation (MR) to form a common document LL. We first implemented this document in May 2020 for digestive surgery and in December 2020 for orthopaedic surgery. Since March 2021 we continued this implementation in otolaryngology.Aim and objectivesThe objective was to assess changes in practice and satisfaction among hospital staff (HS) in the otolaryngology department.Material and methodsA prospective observational study was conducted from 1 March to 1 April 2021, including all otolaryngology patients with an overnight hospital stay, to identify which document (MR, HR or LL) was created. Information about the patients was also collected in a table. A survey with eight questions was distributed to collect knowledge, use and satisfaction with the HS.ResultsThe data collection included 42 patients: 21 males and 21 females. The median age was 61.5 range (17–89) years. The average length of stay was 4.77 (range 1–16) days. Surgeries were scheduled in 10% of cases. The main reasons for hospitalisation were parotidectomy, laryngectomy and thyroidectomy. For these 42 patients, 18 HR, 1 MR and 33 LL were created.Of the 45 questionnaires sent to HS, we received 30 responses.90% of the HS stated that they knew about the MR, and 47% used it. 90% had been aware of the LL (by verbal and written communication). 43% of them were informed by a pharmacist. 90% considered that the presentation of the LL is satisfactory. 87% of HS were satisfied with this creation and 83% said they had not encountered any difficulties.59% of doctors found this implementation very useful, 27% indispensable and 14% somewhat useful. 75% of doctors said they use the LL frequently; 17% rarely consider using it and 8.5% said they never use it.Conclusion and relevanceHS are mostly satisfied by this new communication tool. However, this study shows the difficulty in changing practice since duplication of documents was observed. A remote assessment would allow a conclusion to be reached about the robustness of the use of the LL.References and/or acknowledgementsConflict of interestNo conflict of interest