Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-688nx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T14:55:00.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Readability of out-patient letters copied to patients: can patients understand what is written about them?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2009

S L Todhunter ,
P J Clamp ,
S Gillett  and
D D Pothier
S L Todhunter*
Affiliation:
Royal United Hospital, Bath NHS Trust
P J Clamp
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Gloucester Royal Hospital, Gloucestershire NHS Foundation Trust
S Gillett
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust
D D Pothier
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto
*
Address for correspondence: Dr S L Todhunter, Royal United Hospital, Bath NHS Trust Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK. E-mail: Sarah.Todhunter@doctors.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The National Health Service Plan of 2000 proposed that patients should receive a copy of all correspondence regarding their care. There is concern that the readability of patients' letters may not be appropriate for many patients.

Materials and methods:

This study determined readability scores for sequential letters written to general practitioners and copied to patients, following ENT consultations at the Royal United Hospital in Bath. Intervention involved educating clinicians in techniques to improve readability.

Results and analysis:

A total of 295 letters from eight clinicians were assessed in the pre-intervention phase. The mean Flesch reading ease score was 61.8 (standard deviation 8.7) and the mean Flesch–Kincaid reading grade was 9.0 (standard deviation 1.7). Re-audit analysed a further 301 letters. There was no significant change in the readability of the letters post-intervention.

Discussion:

It may not be feasible to present medical information intended for general practitioners in a way that is readable to most of the UK adult population.

Keywords

Educational StatusComprehensionCommunicationCorrespondence as a TopicLetters as a topicOutpatientsPatient Education as a topicConsumer health informationOtolaryngology

Information

Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 124 , Issue 3 , March 2010 , pp. 324 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Ley, P. Memory for medical information. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 1979;18:245–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Department of Health. The Patient's Charter. Norwich: HMSO, 1991Google Scholar
3Department of Health. The NHS Plan: a Plan For Investment, a Plan For Reform. Norwich: HMSO, 2000Google Scholar
4Pothier, DD, Nankivel, P, Hall, CEJ. What do patients think about being copied into their GP letters? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007;89:718–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Beyer, DR, Lauer, MS, Davis, S. Readability of informed-consent forms. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2262–3Google ScholarPubMed
6Clement, WA, Wales, Y. Readability and content of postoperative tonsillectomy instructions given to patients in Scotland. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2004;29:149–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Friedman, DB, Hoffman-Goetz, L, Arocha, JF. Health literacy and the World Wide Web: comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet. Med Inform Internet Med 2006;31:67–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Friedman, DB, Hoffman-Goetz, L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 2006;33:352–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Gemoets, D, Rosemblat, G, Tse, T, Logan, R. Assessing readability of consumer health information: an exploratory study. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004;107:869–73Google ScholarPubMed
10Greenfield, SF, Sugarman, DE, Nargiso, J, Weiss, RD. Readability of patient handout materials in a nationwide sample of alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs. Am J Addict 2005;14:339–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Murray, A, Robertson, S, Bingham, B. Readability of ENT consent form amendments. Clin Otolaryngol 2006;31:346–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Paasche-Orlow, MK, Taylor, HA, Brancati, FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 2003;348:721–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Sutherland, LA, Wildemuth, B, Campbell, MK, Haines, PS. Unravelling the web: an evaluation of the content quality, usability, and readability of nutrition web sites. J Nutr Educ Behav 2005;37:300–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Tait, AR, Voepel-Lewis, T, Malviya, S, Philipson, SJ. Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: effects on parents' understanding. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:347–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Thompson, HS, Wahl, E, Fatone, A, Brown, K, Kwate, NO, Valdimarsdottir, H. Enhancing the readability of materials describing genetic risk for breast cancer. Cancer Control 2004;11:245–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Wallace, LS, Roskos, SE, Weiss, BD. Readability characteristics of consumer medication information for asthma inhalation devices. J Asthma 2006;43:375–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Friedman, DB, Hoffman-Goetz, L, Arocha, JF. Readability of cancer information on the internet. J Cancer Educ 2004;19:117–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Department of Education and Skills. The Skills for Life Survey. A National Needs and Impact Survey of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT Skills. Norwich: HMSO, 2003Google Scholar
20Office of National Statistics. Adult Literacy in Britain. Norwich: HMSO, 1996Google Scholar
21Davis, TC, Mayeaux, EJ, Fredrickson, D, Bocchini, JA Jr, Jackson, RH, Murphy, PW. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics 1994;93:460–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Roberts, NJ, Partridge, MR. How useful are post consultation letters to patients? BMC Med 2006;4:2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Ofo, E, Seymour, FK, Kalan, A. ENT consultant outpatient letters: are they crystal clear? Ann R Coll Surg Engl (Suppl) 2007;89:284–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar