Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T12:28:12.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient information leaflet on mastoid surgery risks: assessment of readability and patient understanding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2013

M B Pringle ,
B G Natesh  and
K M Konieczny
M B Pringle*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, UK
B G Natesh
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Poole Hospital, UK
K M Konieczny
Affiliation:
ENT Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Mike Pringle, FRCS (ORL) Consultant ENT Surgeon, ENT Department, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham, Portsmouth PO6 3LY, UK Fax: +44 (0)2392 286 708 E-mail: mike.pringle@porthosp.nhs.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

It is important that patients have a good understanding of surgery-related risks, particularly for mastoid surgery, which exposes patients to the risk of very serious complications, despite addressing conditions which often have only minor symptoms.

Materials and methods:

A patient information leaflet describing the risks of mastoid surgery was prepared. However, the Hospital Patient Advice and Liaison Services team thought it was too long and complicated. It was introduced unchanged. Fifty-four consecutive mastoidectomy patients were given a questionnaire asking for their opinion of the leaflet. The leaflet was also assessed with readability formulae and the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.

Results and analysis:

Ninety-eight per cent of respondents thought the leaflet's writing style was easy to understand. The majority (96 per cent) thought the length was ‘just right’. The 7 readability formulae used established readability at a grade 9 level (i.e. appropriate for a reading age of 13–15 years). The Ensuring Quality Information for Patients score was 87.5 per cent.

Discussion:

Despite the drive to simplify patient information leaflets, quite detailed information is sometimes required. A style which is too simple may be perceived as patronising and may encourage patients to underestimate potential risks. It is important to ask patients their opinion.

Keywords

Otologic Surgical ProceduresMastoidInformed ConsentInformed Consent DocumentsReadability

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 127 , Issue 11 , November 2013 , pp. 1078 - 1083
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013 

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

Footnotes

Presented as a poster at the 14th British Academic Conference in Otolaryngology, 4–6 July 2012, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

References

1Moult, B, Franck, LS, Brady, H. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect 2004;7:165–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Readability Formulas. In: http://www.readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php [16 August 2012]Google Scholar
3General Medical Council. Consent: Patients and Doctors Making Decisions Together. London: General Medical Council, 2008Google Scholar
4Kitching, JB. Patient information leaflets – the state of the art. J R Soc Med 1990;83:298–300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Gauld, VA. Written advice: compliance and recall. J R Coll Gen Practice 1981;31:553–6Google ScholarPubMed
6Doak, CC, Doak, LG, Root, JH. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills, 2nd edn.Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Company, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Green, GM, Olsen, MS. Preferences for and Comprehension of Original and Readability Adapted Materials. Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1986Google Scholar
8Harding, C, Romanou, E, Williams, J, Peters, M, Winkley, J, Burke, P et al. Skills for Life Survey: Headline Findings 2011. London: Department for Business and Innovation Skills, 2011Google Scholar
9Williams, J, Clemens, S, Oleinikoya, K, Tarvin, K. The Skills for Life Survey: a National Needs and Impact Survey of Literacy, Numeracy and ICT Skills. London: Department for Education and Skills, 2003Google Scholar
10Mackenzie, P. Closing the loop: lessons from surgical cases. Casebook 2012;20:7–9Google Scholar