Original contribution
Functional illiteracy among emergency department patients: A preliminary study

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81944-4Get rights and content

Study objectives:

To determine the ability of emergency department patients to understand common written discharge instructions and the level of reading difficulty of standard discharge instructions.

Design:

The study was performed in two parts. In part 1, subjects were asked to read one set of standard written discharge instructions. Then, with the instructions to refer to, subjects were asked to answer five questions about the instructions. A subject's level of success was correlated with age, sex, and highest level of education. In part 2, 47 sets of standard written discharge instructions from six different EDs were computer analyzed using five commonly used readability formulas. Results were reported as grade levels.

Setting:

The ED of a large inner-city university hospital.

Type of participants:

The subjects for part 1 were 400 adult ED patients who presented on randomly selected days.

Measurements and main results:

Part 1: A significant proportion of patients failed to answer correctly at least four of five questions. Patients educated beyond high school demonstrated higher levels of success than did those with less education. A trend was noted for younger subjects to perform better than older subjects. The answers to the three most frequently missed questions were contained within areas of difficult sentence structure or long paragraphs containing large amounts of information. Part 2: The average grade level required to understand instruction sheets ranged from 6.0 to 13.4. More difficult instruction sheets tended to contain numerous multisyllabic words, long sentences, and difficult sentence structure.

Conclusion:

A significant proportion of ED patients have a demonstrable inability to understand common written instructions. ED instruction sheets are written at a level of difficulty that is out of the readable range for many patients. Health care providers should strive to simplify written materials and to develop new methods for instructing those for whom current written materials have no meaning.

References (19)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (93)

  • The role of health literacy in orthopaedic rehabilitation after total knee and hip arthroplasty: A scoping review

    2021, International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing
    Citation Excerpt :

    Negative effects on patients are far-reaching, such as inability to interpret health information, increased health care costs due to higher use of health care resources, increased rate of hospitalization, and failure to follow instructions from health professionals (Berkman et al., 2011, Badarudeen and Sabharwal, 2010; Andrus and Roth, 2002). Possible influencing factors for inadequate health literacy that have been documented include socioeconomic status, age, chronic disease, and cognition (Speros, 2009; Gazmararian et al., 1999; Jolly et al., 1993). However, there is a lack of research in orthopaedic populations (Kadakia et al., 2013; Paasche-Orlow et al., 2005).

  • Emergency Department Operations II: Patient Flow

    2020, Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America
  • Effective discharge communication in the emergency department

    2012, Annals of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Even the most complete instructions will result in deficient comprehension unless they are presented in a way that is understandable to the learner. However, written ED discharge instructions are often at an inappropriately high reading level, and marked differences in comprehension have been reported, depending on level of educational attainment.8,9 For example, Spandorfer et al10 found that although the mean reading level of ED patients was sixth grade, the printed discharge instructions were written at an 11th-grade level.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Presented in part at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, May 1991.

View full text