Dataset Information

Developing a patient information leaflet to improve information offered to patients undergoing appendicectomy.

ABSTRACT: An appendicectomy is one of the most common operations performed in North Devon District Hospital (NDDH) with over 200 carried out between 2013 to 2014. Despite this, a patient information leaflet (PIL) about appendicectomy is unavailable, which is compromising standards of care and uncompliant with Trust policy. This project aimed to establish levels of written information offered to patients undergoing an appendicectomy, develop a PIL, and assess its impact on the provision of written information using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology. Case notes of patients operated on between January 2013 to October 2014 were randomly sampled at baseline. The primary outcome measure was whether written information was offered, retrospectively determined by reviewing the medical record. A PIL was then designed following a standard protocol, published on NDDH's website and distributed onto surgical wards. Posters were displayed in staff rooms to encourage use of the PIL for PDSA cycle 1. An article further promoting the PIL was written for the wards monthly newsletter and a local presentation was delivered for PDSA cycle 2. Patients views about the PIL were assessed prospectively using a questionnaire. The primary outcome was measured at 10 weeks following PDSA cycle 1 and at 5 months following PDSA cycle 2. 17% (5/30) of patients were offered written information at baseline. Following PDSA cycle 1, this rose substantially to 53% (8/15) but rates fell to 46% (7/15) following PDSA cycle 2. 89% of patients (8/9) surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the PIL was helpful. This project indicates that provision of written information is poor despite it being highly valued by patients. The first ever Trust appendicectomy PIL has been established which substantially improved provision of written information after 10 weeks. However, continued education of staff is essential to embed good practice over the long term.

SUBMITTER: Smith R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4850866 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough patients frequently use patient information leaflets (PILs) to obtain information about medicine, their confidence in using it may be diminished after reading it. This study aimed to assess the public perception of PIL's quality and the perceived impact of its use on medication adherence.MethodsA community-based cross-sectional study of 1,138 adult individuals in Saudi Arabia, April-May 2020, was conducted via Survey Monkey using an anonymous validated e-questionnaire. Data were collected on personal characteristics, PIL readership and preferences, perception towards PIL quality and impact of its use on taking medication, and reasons for not reading PIL. In addition, logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the significant predictors of reading PIL. Significance was considered at p < 0.05.ResultsNearly all participants (91.1%) reported reading PIL. The more read PIL's sections were directions of use (52.7%) and side effects (30.3%). Female gender (OR = 5.64, 95%CI: 3.53,9.02), age over 40 years (OR = 2.80, 95%CI: 1.69,4.64), and secondary education or more (OR = 1.74, 95%CI: 1.06,2.85) were the significant predictors of reading PIL. The majority of PIL readers reported their preference for verbal information (65.8%), hard copy presentation (77%), adding graphics (71.1%), and concise content of PIL (68.8%). In addition, most participants reported PIL always/usually adds to their knowledge of medicines (70.6%) and said that PIL reading positively impacted their medication adherence (64.9%). For only 8.8%, PIL reading negatively impacted their adherence, primarily because of reading information on medicine's side effects and complications (74.4%). More than one-half of participants perceived the PIL quality as good/excellent in terms of; font size (51.3%), language comprehensiveness (64.9%), paper quality (68.0%), and general appearance (64.9%). Getting sufficient information from doctors and pharmacists was the main reason for not reading the PIL (59.2%). Most participants (92.5%) agreed on standardizing how information is displayed in the PIL among all PILs of all companies.ConclusionPIL is read by nearly all the study sample, especially females, older, and educated subjects. It was perceived as beneficial in upgrading medication adherence. Effective designing of PILs should focus on patients' literacy level and age. Standardization of the PIL structure in all pharmaceutical companies is recommended.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess what is known about the relationship between patient experience measures and incentives designed to improve care, and to identify how public policy and medical practices can promote patient-valued outcomes in health systems with strong financial incentives.Data sources/study settingExisting literature (gray and peer-reviewed) on measuring patient experience and patient-reported outcomes, identified from Medline and Cochrane databases; evaluations of pay-for-performance programs in the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth countries.Study design/data collectionWe analyzed (1) studies of pay-for-performance, to identify those including metrics for patient experience, and (2) studies of patient experience and of patient-reported outcomes to identify evidence of influence on clinical practice, whether through public reporting or private reporting to clinicians.Principal findingsFirst, we identify four forms of "patient-reported information" (PRI), each with distinctive roles shaping clinical practice: (1) patient-reported outcomes measuring self-assessed physical and mental well-being, (2) surveys of patient experience with clinicians and staff, (3) narrative accounts describing encounters with clinicians in patients' own words, and (4) complaints/grievances signaling patients' distress when treatment or outcomes fall short of expectations. Because these forms vary in crucial ways, each must be distinctively measured, deployed, and linked with financial incentives. Second, although the literature linking incentives to patients experience is limited, implementing pay-for-performance systems appears to threaten certain patient-valued aspects of health care. But incentives can be made compatible with the outcomes patients value if: (a) a sufficient portion of incentives is tied to patient-reported outcomes and experiences, (b) incentivized forms of PRI are complemented by other forms of patient feedback, and (c) health care organizations assist clinicians to interpret and respond to PRI. Finally, we identify roles for the public and private sectors in financing PRI and orchestrating an appropriate balance among its four forms.ConclusionsUnless public policies are attentive to patients' perspectives, stronger financial incentives for clinicians can threaten aspects of care that patients most value. Certain policy parameters are already clear, but additional research is required to clarify how best to collect patient narratives in varied settings, how to report narratives to consumers in conjunction with quantified metrics, and how to promote a "culture of learning" at the practice level that incorporates patient feedback.

Dataset Information

Developing a patient information leaflet to improve information offered to patients undergoing appendicectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets