Diagnosis Documentation Done Right: Cross-Specialty Standard for the Diagnosis Section in German Discharge Summaries — A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Abstract Background The diagnosis section in hospital discharge summaries is critical for continuity of care and patient safety, yet it varies widely in quality, format, and content due to a lack of standards. Objective This study aims to develop a cross-specialty standard for the structure and content of the diagnosis section, based on the preferences of German physicians. The study examines physicians’ satisfaction with the diagnosis section, their rating of its importance, and their preferences for its specific elements, comparing perspectives between inpatient and outpatient physicians. Design, Participants, Approach This mixed-methods study integrated a scoping review, focus group discussion, and a nationwide survey of 602 physicians (317 outpatient primary care and 285 inpatient physicians; 4.1% response rate), most trained in internal medicine. Quantitative analyses evaluated physician satisfaction and preferences, while qualitative feedback provided deeper insights regarding preferred content and format. Key Results Although 95.7% of physicians considered the diagnosis section crucial for follow-up care, only 36.9% were satisfied with its current content and format. 91.2% supported standardizing the diagnosis section, identifying 18 content elements to be included for every current treatment diagnosis. Strong consensus (> 95.0% agreement) was reached for “name of the diagnosis,” “severity/stage/classification/TNM,” “localization/extent/pattern of involvement,” “course e.g., acute, chronic, recurrent,” “expression,” “complications,” “date of initial diagnosis,” and “etiology/cause.” 86.4% preferred separating current and chronic/prior diagnoses with headings. Outpatient physicians were more likely than inpatient physicians to rate “ICD-10 codes” as mandatory (46.2% vs. 14.8%, p < 0.001) and to consider “recommendations for further procedures” (76.6% vs. 63.6%, p < 0.001) and “follow-up appointments” (77.3% vs. 63.5%, p < 0.001) as necessary. Additionally, a list of practical recommendations for clinicians to better document diagnoses was derived. Conclusions This study proposes a cross-specialty standard for the diagnosis section based on physician preferences for a clearly structured format and 18 key content elements.