Failure of hospital discharge-summary processes to provide accurate, complete and timely information to GPs
First to latest report 14 Jan 2014 — 3 Jun 2026
Reports that mention this concern
26
Times this concern has been raised
32
Stated actions linked to this concern
54
What this concern includes
Includes dedicated failures of the hospital discharge-summary process that affect the accuracy, completeness, finalisation, quality assurance or timely transmission of summaries to GPs.
What is not included
Excludes generic IT, staffing, training or documentation deficiencies not explicitly tied to the hospital discharge-summary process.
Excludes failures concerning other clinical documents or information-sharing processes that are not discharge summaries.
Excludes downstream failures by GPs or other recipients to review or act on a discharge summary after it has been received.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust2
Ashford and St Peter'S Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
Barts Health NHS Trust1
Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
Care Quality Commission1
Department of Health and Social Care1
Dudley Integrated Health and Care NHS Trust1
Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust1
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust1
Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust1
Isle of Wight NHS Trust1
Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust1
King's College Hospital1
King'S College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust1
NHS trust23
Healthcare site4
Executive non-departmental public body2
English metropolitan district council1
Health and social care service regulator1
Ministerial department1
Reports and published responses 26 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
Failure to ensure accurate and complete discharge information is communicated to primary care teams
Linked responses
NHS England
NHS Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.12
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Use a standardised discharge-letter template covering admission reasons and discharge diagnoses.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Provide junior doctors with e-learning reinforcing accurate information in discharge letters to GPs.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Request GP feedback and conduct regular audits of discharge-letter information quality.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Increase the frequency of discharge-letter audits for each monthly QMG cycle.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Extend GP feedback collection, review findings, discuss necessary actions, report to the Executive Quality Board, and repeat the audit at intervals.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Discuss the case with the consultant involved to encourage reflective learning.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust
Strengthen the Letters Policy to clarify discharge-letter procedures and senior medical oversight.
NHS Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group
Continue joint work through the LLR-wide discharge group to address IT barriers to electronic transfer of discharge letters to primary care.
NHS Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group
Report monthly discharge-letter audit results to the CCGs’ Contract team for formal oversight.
NHS Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group
Develop a process for obtaining timely GP feedback on inaccurate discharge letters and supporting rapid correction and clinician learning.
NHS Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group
Include a discharge-letter quality indicator in the 2017–2018 UHL contract and formally monitor and report it, with corrective-action discussions if improvements are not sustained.
NHS Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group
Include in the junior doctors’ induction programme an item emphasising accurate, timely information for primary care.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
NHS England
Responsibility for commissioning services and providing assurance on mitigation actions rests with the Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Brighton and Hove
Concerns raised1
Failure to send hospital discharge summaries electronically to GPs on the day of discharge
This report raised 10 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Exeter and Greater Devon
Concerns raised1
Failure to send discharge letters to GPs documenting dangerous treatment side effects
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin
Concerns raised1
Failure to send discharge summaries to patients’ GPs
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Inner South London
Concerns raised1
Failure to communicate discharge information and monitoring needs to primary care
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
The Trust
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
The Trust
Produce discharge notifications for patients who self-discharge.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
The Trust
The Trust states that the GP was informed by telephone and received a discharge summary containing the abnormal results.
Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Failure of discharge documentation to include vital admission and discharge information
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.