Cargando…
Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy
OBJECTIVE: To examine the content and quality of written information provided by surgical centres for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of the content of National Health Service (NHS) patient information leaflets (PILs) about oesophageal cancer surgery, usi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606391/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26459487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008536 |
_version_ | 1782395341669138432 |
---|---|
author | Blencowe, N S Strong, S McNair, A G K Howes, N Elliot, J Avery, K N Blazeby, J M |
author_facet | Blencowe, N S Strong, S McNair, A G K Howes, N Elliot, J Avery, K N Blazeby, J M |
author_sort | Blencowe, N S |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To examine the content and quality of written information provided by surgical centres for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of the content of National Health Service (NHS) patient information leaflets (PILs) about oesophageal cancer surgery, using a modified framework approach. DATA SOURCES: Written information leaflets from 41 of 43 cancer centres undertaking surgery for oesophageal cancer in England and Wales (response rate 95.3%). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All English language versions of PILs about oesophagectomy. RESULTS: 32 different PILs were identified, of which 2 were generic tools (Macmillan ‘understanding cancer of the gullet’ and EIDO ‘oesophagectomy’). Although most PILs focused on describing in-hospital adverse events, information varied widely and was often misleading. Just 1 leaflet described survival benefits of surgery and 2 mentioned the possibility of disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Written information provided for patients by NHS cancer centres undertaking oesophagectomy is inconsistent and incomplete. It is recommended that surgeons work together with patients to agree on standards of information provision of relevance to all stakeholders’ needs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4606391 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46063912015-10-22 Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy Blencowe, N S Strong, S McNair, A G K Howes, N Elliot, J Avery, K N Blazeby, J M BMJ Open Surgery OBJECTIVE: To examine the content and quality of written information provided by surgical centres for patients undergoing oesophagectomy for cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of the content of National Health Service (NHS) patient information leaflets (PILs) about oesophageal cancer surgery, using a modified framework approach. DATA SOURCES: Written information leaflets from 41 of 43 cancer centres undertaking surgery for oesophageal cancer in England and Wales (response rate 95.3%). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All English language versions of PILs about oesophagectomy. RESULTS: 32 different PILs were identified, of which 2 were generic tools (Macmillan ‘understanding cancer of the gullet’ and EIDO ‘oesophagectomy’). Although most PILs focused on describing in-hospital adverse events, information varied widely and was often misleading. Just 1 leaflet described survival benefits of surgery and 2 mentioned the possibility of disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Written information provided for patients by NHS cancer centres undertaking oesophagectomy is inconsistent and incomplete. It is recommended that surgeons work together with patients to agree on standards of information provision of relevance to all stakeholders’ needs. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4606391/ /pubmed/26459487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008536 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Surgery Blencowe, N S Strong, S McNair, A G K Howes, N Elliot, J Avery, K N Blazeby, J M Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy |
title | Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy |
title_full | Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy |
title_fullStr | Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy |
title_short | Assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy |
title_sort | assessing the quality of written information provision for surgical procedures: a case study in oesophagectomy |
topic | Surgery |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606391/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26459487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008536 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT blencowens assessingthequalityofwritteninformationprovisionforsurgicalproceduresacasestudyinoesophagectomy AT strongs assessingthequalityofwritteninformationprovisionforsurgicalproceduresacasestudyinoesophagectomy AT mcnairagk assessingthequalityofwritteninformationprovisionforsurgicalproceduresacasestudyinoesophagectomy AT howesn assessingthequalityofwritteninformationprovisionforsurgicalproceduresacasestudyinoesophagectomy AT elliotj assessingthequalityofwritteninformationprovisionforsurgicalproceduresacasestudyinoesophagectomy AT averykn assessingthequalityofwritteninformationprovisionforsurgicalproceduresacasestudyinoesophagectomy AT blazebyjm assessingthequalityofwritteninformationprovisionforsurgicalproceduresacasestudyinoesophagectomy |