Irish journal of medical science · 2013
Readability and content of patient information leaflets for endoscopic procedures.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gargoum F S, O'Keeffe S T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Informed consent requires good communication. Patient information leaflets (PILs) may be helpful, although some PILs are too hard to read for the average patient.
AIMS: We sought to examine the readability of PILs provided for patients prior to endoscopic procedures in 24 gastrointestinal and 16 respiratory departments of 24 Irish public hospitals.
METHODS: Readability, measured using the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores, and content of all PILs were examined.
RESULTS: We received 61 PILs from 17 gastrointestinal and 7 respiratory departments, a response rate of 60 % (24/40). Overall, 38 (62 %) PILs met a minimum standard of a Reading Ease score of 60 or more. Only two (3 %) PILs met the optimal reading standard of being comprehensible to an average 10- to 11-year-old, while 35 (57 %) PILs would be comprehensible to an average 13- to 14-year-old. There were striking differences between PILs (and particular departments) in the amount of information given regarding potential complications-in particular, serious complications. With the exception of PILs for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, less than half of PILs mentioned death as a possible rare outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: This study raises significant concerns about the readability and content of current Irish PILs, and it is unlikely that these issues are restricted to leaflets given prior to endoscopy. A standardised approach to developing PILs for common elective procedures, with minimum standards for readability and a uniform approach, based on current Irish legal requirements, to risk disclosure, might be helpful.
AIMS: We sought to examine the readability of PILs provided for patients prior to endoscopic procedures in 24 gastrointestinal and 16 respiratory departments of 24 Irish public hospitals.
METHODS: Readability, measured using the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores, and content of all PILs were examined.
RESULTS: We received 61 PILs from 17 gastrointestinal and 7 respiratory departments, a response rate of 60 % (24/40). Overall, 38 (62 %) PILs met a minimum standard of a Reading Ease score of 60 or more. Only two (3 %) PILs met the optimal reading standard of being comprehensible to an average 10- to 11-year-old, while 35 (57 %) PILs would be comprehensible to an average 13- to 14-year-old. There were striking differences between PILs (and particular departments) in the amount of information given regarding potential complications-in particular, serious complications. With the exception of PILs for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, less than half of PILs mentioned death as a possible rare outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: This study raises significant concerns about the readability and content of current Irish PILs, and it is unlikely that these issues are restricted to leaflets given prior to endoscopy. A standardised approach to developing PILs for common elective procedures, with minimum standards for readability and a uniform approach, based on current Irish legal requirements, to risk disclosure, might be helpful.