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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blencowe, N S, Strong, S, McNair, A G K, Howes, N, Elliot, J, Avery, K N, Blazeby, J M
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