Brent Hill1, Seneca Perri-Moore2, Jinqiu Kuang2, Bruce E Bray2, Long Ngo3, Alexa Doig2, Qing Zeng-Treitler2. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA b.hill@utah.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Harvard School of Medicine, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the effect of standard vs pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions on patients' immediate and delayed recall of and satisfaction with their discharge instructions. Second, to evaluate the effect of automated pictograph enhancement on patient satisfaction with their discharge instructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Glyph, an automated healthcare informatics system, was used to automatically enhance patient discharge instructions with pictographs. Glyph was developed at the University of Utah by our research team. Patients in a cardiovascular medical unit were randomized to receive pictograph-enhanced or standard discharge instructions. Measures of immediate and delayed recall and satisfaction with discharge instructions were compared between two randomized groups: pictograph (n = 71) and standard (n = 73). RESULTS:Study participants who received pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions recalled 35% more of their instructions at discharge than those who received standard discharge instructions. The ratio of instructions at discharge was: standard = 0.04 ± 0.03 and pictograph-enhanced = 0.06 ± 0.03. The ratio of instructions at 1 week post discharge was: standard = 0.04 ± 0.02 and pictograph-enhanced 0.04 ± 0.02. Additionally, study participants who received pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions were more satisfied with the understandability of their instructions at 1 week post-discharge than those who received standard discharge instructions. DISCUSSION: Pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions have the potential to increase patient understanding of and satisfaction with discharge instructions. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to automatically illustrate discharge instructions and provide them to patients in a timely manner without interfering with clinical work. Illustrations in discharge instructions were found to improve patients' short-term recall of discharge instructions and delayed satisfaction (1-week post hospitalization) with the instructions. Therefore, it is likely that patients' understanding of and interaction with their discharge instructions is improved by the addition of illustrations. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2015. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the effect of standard vs pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions on patients' immediate and delayed recall of and satisfaction with their discharge instructions. Second, to evaluate the effect of automated pictograph enhancement on patient satisfaction with their discharge instructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Glyph, an automated healthcare informatics system, was used to automatically enhance patient discharge instructions with pictographs. Glyph was developed at the University of Utah by our research team. Patients in a cardiovascular medical unit were randomized to receive pictograph-enhanced or standard discharge instructions. Measures of immediate and delayed recall and satisfaction with discharge instructions were compared between two randomized groups: pictograph (n = 71) and standard (n = 73). RESULTS: Study participants who received pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions recalled 35% more of their instructions at discharge than those who received standard discharge instructions. The ratio of instructions at discharge was: standard = 0.04 ± 0.03 and pictograph-enhanced = 0.06 ± 0.03. The ratio of instructions at 1 week post discharge was: standard = 0.04 ± 0.02 and pictograph-enhanced 0.04 ± 0.02. Additionally, study participants who received pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions were more satisfied with the understandability of their instructions at 1 week post-discharge than those who received standard discharge instructions. DISCUSSION: Pictograph-enhanced discharge instructions have the potential to increase patient understanding of and satisfaction with discharge instructions. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to automatically illustrate discharge instructions and provide them to patients in a timely manner without interfering with clinical work. Illustrations in discharge instructions were found to improve patients' short-term recall of discharge instructions and delayed satisfaction (1-week post hospitalization) with the instructions. Therefore, it is likely that patients' understanding of and interaction with their discharge instructions is improved by the addition of illustrations. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2015. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
Entities:
Keywords:
consumer; health literacy; informatics; patient education; pictograph
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Paul Alexander Clark; Maxwell Drain; Sabina B Gesell; Deirdre M Mylod; Dennis O Kaldenberg; Julie Hamilton Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2004-12-09
Authors: Christoph Becker; Samuel Zumbrunn; Katharina Beck; Alessia Vincent; Nina Loretz; Jonas Müller; Simon A Amacher; Rainer Schaefert; Sabina Hunziker Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-08-02
Authors: Danielle Schubbe; Sarah Cohen; Renata W Yen; Maria Vd Muijsenbergh; Peter Scalia; Catherine H Saunders; Marie-Anne Durand Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Bryan Ping Ho Chung; Wendy Kam Ha Chiang; Herman Lau; Titanic Fuk On Lau; Charles Wai Kin Lai; Claudia Sin Yi Sit; Ka Yan Chan; Chau Yee Yeung; Tak Man Lo; Elsie Hui; Jenny Shun Wah Lee Journal: Hong Kong Physiother J Date: 2020-02-20
Authors: Ian Chetter; Catherine Arundel; Belen Corbacho Martin; Catherine Hewitt; Caroline Fairhurst; Kalpita Joshi; Andrew Mott; Sara Rodgers; Pedro Saramago Goncalves; David Torgerson; Jacqueline Wilkinson; Jane Blazeby; Rhiannon Macefield; Stephen Dixon; Eileen Henderson; Angela Oswald; Jo Dumville; Matthew Lee; Thomas Pinkney; Nikki Stubbs; Lyn Wilson Journal: Trials Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Lauren Burke; Elizabeth Littlewood; Samantha Gascoyne; Dean McMillan; Carolyn A Chew-Graham; Della Bailey; Claire Sloan; Caroline Fairhurst; Kalpita Baird; Catherine Hewitt; Andrew Henry; Eloise Ryde; Leanne Shearsmith; Peter Coventry; Suzanne Crosland; Elizabeth Newbronner; Gemma Traviss-Turner; Rebecca Woodhouse; Andrew Clegg; Tom Gentry; Andrew Hill; Karina Lovell; Sarah Dexter Smith; Judith Webster; David Ekers; Simon Gilbody Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240