Broken bones and fractures - an audit of patients' perceptions

An analysis of publicly available National Health Service information leaflets for patients following an upper arm break

BACKGROUND

Recovery following an upper arm break can be prolonged and cause loss of independence. Appropriate information provision to empower and enable active participation in rehabilitation is vital to achieve the best clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and analyse, through the lens of health literacy, publicly available information leaflets produced for patients following upper arm breaks in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) to understand their fitness for purpose.

METHOD

An electronic search of online search engines was undertaken using search terms to identify information leaflets for upper arm breaks. Relevant leaflets were retrieved and a thematic analysis was undertaken from a health literacy perspective. To complement this, each information leaflet was also formally assessed for readability.

RESULTS

Thirty-five information leaflets were analysed. Two main themes were generated: 'Empowerment' and 'Language Use', with subthemes of promoting recovery, readability and risk of misinterpretation. The information presented in these leaflets was often complicated and sometimes contradictory. Less than half (46%) of the information leaflets were presented at a level that would be understood by the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Current information leaflets made available for patients following upper arm breaks are not fit for purpose and are written in a way that the general population would not readily understand. There is an urgent need to understand the information needs of patients and present such information in an accessible way to optimise clinical outcomes following upper arm breaks.

Improving consultations for persistent musculoskeletal low back pain in orthopaedic spine settings: an intervention development

BACKGROUND

There is a need to improve consultations between patients with persistent musculoskeletal low back pain and orthopaedic spine clinicians when surgery is not indicated. Poor communication and lack of education about self- management in these consultations have been shown to be associated with increased distress and higher subsequent health care seeking.

AIM

To develop a standardised intervention to improve spine care consultations for patients for whom surgery is not beneficial.

METHOD

The intervention was developed in six stages. The first three stages included: interviews with patients, an interactive workshop with clinicians from a mix of disciplines, and interviews with spine clinicians about their perspective of the recommendations, their perceived difficulties and potential improvements. Information from these stages was synthesised by an expert panel, creating a draft intervention structure and content. The main features of the intervention and the materials developed were then reviewed by patients and spine clinicians. Finally, the research team incorporated the recommended amendments to produce the intervention.

RESULTS

In total, 36 patients and 79 clinicians contributed to the development of the intervention. The final intervention includes three components: a pre-consultation letter with information suggesting that surgery is one possible intervention amongst many, introducing the staff, and alerting patients to bring with them a potted history of interventions tried previously. The intervention includes short online training sessions to improve clinicians' communication skills, during the consultation, in reference to listening skills, validation of patients' pain, and use of appropriate language. Clinicians are also supplied with a list of evidence-based sources for advice and further information to share with patients. Finally, post consultation, a follow up letter includes a short summary of the patients' clinical journey, the results of their examination and tests, and a reminder of recommendations for self-management.

CONCLUSION

The intervention includes aspects around patient education and enhanced clinician skills. It was developed with input from a multitude of stakeholders and is based on patients' perceptions of what they would find reassuring and empowering when surgery is excluded. The intervention has the potential to improve the patients care journey and might lead to changes in practice in spine clinicians.

Taking patients to the ice cream shop but telling them that they cannot have ice cream: a qualitative study of orthopaedic spine clinicians' perceptions of persistent low back pain consultations

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the perceptions of orthopaedic clinicians about consultations for people with persistent musculoskeletal low back pain (PMLBP) in which surgery is not recommended. Surgery is not recommended for the majority of PMLBP consulting in secondary care settings.

SETTING

Secondary care sector in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 24 orthopaedic team clinicians from 17 different hospitals in the UK and Ireland. Interviews explored clinicians' perceptions of the challenges in consultations where surgery is not indicated. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two meta-themes, Difficulties and Enablers, each consisting of several subthemes were identified. Difficulties included challenges around the choice of appropriate terminology and labels for PMLBP, managing patients' expectations, working with mentally vulnerable patients and explaining imaging findings. Enablers included early management of expectations, use of routine imaging, triaging, access to direct referral elsewhere, including other non-surgical practitioners in the team, training to improve communication skills and understanding of psychological issues.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight clinicians' perceived need for concordance in messages delivered across the care pathway and training of orthopaedic clinicians to deliver effective reassurance and address patients' needs in circumstances where surgery is not indicated.

'Reassurance and healthcare seeking in people with persistent musculoskeletal low back pain consulting orthopaedic spine practitioners: A prospective cohort study'

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend self-management for most people living with persistent musculoskeletal low back pain (PMLBP) when surgery is ruled out. Conveying this message to patients can be challenging. This study examined patients' perceptions of reassuring communications from surgical spine team practitioners attempting to deliver this message in a single consultation.

METHODS

Pre-consultation baseline measures included levels of pain, disability and previous consultation history. Patients' perceptions of reassuring communications were measured within 1-week post-consultation. The outcome variables, measured at 3-month follow-up, included patients' report of subsequent GP visits for back pain, the number of other healthcare providers consulted for back pain and distress.

RESULTS

Data from 296 patients (9.8% loss to follow-up) were analysed using hierarchical regression models, controlling for demographic, clinical and study-related factors. In each model, perceived reassurance accounted for a small but significant variance, above and beyond other predictors. Further GP visits were predicted by disability at baseline and perceived reassurance (adjusted R² of 14.6%). Subsequent consultations with any healthcare professionals were predicted by a shorter duration of back pain, disability at baseline and perceived reassurance (adj. R²  = 10.6%). Distress was predicted by older age, disability and reassurance (adj. R²  = 59.5%).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that better communication in consultations with orthopaedic spine clinicians might help reduce unnecessary subsequent healthcare utilization and distress.

SIGNIFICANCE

Low back pain patients' perceptions of their communication with orthopaedic spine practitioners are associated with subsequent healthcare seeking and distress at follow-up. This study examines the intersection of two important but fairly neglected areas in the pain research: provider communication and patient healthcare utilization.

Comparison of health literacy in privately insured and public hospital orthopaedic patients

Objective The aim of the present study was to quantify and compare patient health literacy between privately insured and public orthopaedic patients. Methods As part of the present cross-sectional study, elective postoperative orthopaedic patients across two sites were recruited and asked to complete a questionnaire at the first postoperative out-patient review. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) a public group (Public); (2) a private group (Private-pre); and (3) a private group that completed the questionnaire immediately after the out-patient review (Private-post). The questionnaire consisted of six questions regarding surgical management, expected recovery time and postoperative instructions. Patients were further asked to grade their satisfaction regarding information received throughout their management. Results In all, 150 patients completed the questionnaire, 50 in each of the three groups. Patients in the Public, Private-pre and Private-post groups answered a mean 2.74, 3.24 and 4.70 of 6 questions correctly respectively. The Private-pre group was 1.46-fold more likely to demonstrate correct health literacy than the Public group, whereas the Private-post group was 2.44-fold more likely to demonstrate improved health literacy than the Private-pre group. Patient satisfaction with information received was not associated with health literacy. Conclusion Limited health literacy in orthopaedic patients continues to be an area of concern. Both private and public orthopaedic patients demonstrated poor health literacy, but private patients demonstrated significant improvement after the out-patient review. What is known about the topic? Limited health literacy is a growing public health issue worldwide, with previous literature demonstrating a prevalence of low health literacy of 26% and marginal health literacy of 20% among all patient populations. Of concern, limited health literacy has been shown to result in a range of adverse health outcomes, including increased mortality and chronic disease morbidity. It has also been associated with an increased rate of hospitalisation and use of healthcare resources. Previous work in the orthopaedic trauma setting has found poor levels of health literacy and poor understanding of diagnosis, management and prognosis in the Australian public health system. Promisingly, it has been shown that simple, targeted interventions can improve patient health literacy. What does this paper add? This study further highlights that health literacy exhibited by orthopaedic patients is poor, particularly among patients in the public healthcare system. The present study is the first to have demonstrated that health literacy is poor among patients in both the public and private healthcare systems, despite these patients having distinctly different demographics. Promisingly, the present study shows that, unlike public orthopaedic out-patient review, private orthopaedic out-patient review appears to be effective in increasing patient health literacy regarding their orthopaedic condition and its management. What are the implications for practitioners? Health literacy is essential for patients to effectively communicate with doctors and achieve good health outcomes. Healthcare professionals need to be aware that a large proportion of patients have poor health literacy and difficulty understanding health-related information, particularly pertaining to that surrounding diagnosis, management and prognosis. This study highlights the need for healthcare professionals to ensure that they communicate with patients at an appropriate level to ensure patient understanding during the pre-, peri- and postoperative stages of management. Further, healthcare professionals should be aware that there is potential to improve patient health literacy at routine out-patient review, provided that this opportunity is used as an educational resource.

Patient Comprehension of Common Orthopedic Terminology

Background:

Medical terminology is often complex and confusing to lay people. Even common terms used by health care professionals often have other meanings and can easily be misinterpreted.

Objective:

This study aimed to identify patient comprehension of common orthopedic terminology across multiple hospital settings.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2016 until November 2016 at an Academic Level 1 trauma center. One hundred and fifty emergency department patients and 150 orthopedic inpatients with isolated orthopedic injuries were included. Participants completed a questionnaire consisting of 12 multiple-choice questions determining patient comprehension of common orthopedic terminology.

Key Results:

Total comprehension scores on the questionnaire were scored as number correct out of 11. In the emergency department, the mean total score was 5.01 compared to 5.45 in orthopedic inpatients (p = .046). Patients in both groups demonstrated poor understanding of medical terms (including fracture, ruptured tendon) and anatomical terms. In contrast, nonmedical terminology such as broken bone was better understood. Fifty-seven percent of participants stated that they understood their orthopedic condition completely. Notably, there was no correlation (r = .15) between comprehension and participants describing that they completely understood their orthopedic condition.

Conclusions:

Emergency department patients and orthopedic inpatients demonstrate poor comprehension of orthopedic terminology. Health care professionals should assume a poor level of comprehension during their interactions with orthopedic patients and ensure that patient communication is clear, concise, and informative to facilitate better patient comprehension, informed consent, and an improved doctor-patient relationship. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(3):e187–e193.]

Plain Language Summary:

This study evaluated patient comprehension of common orthopedic terminology in orthopedic inpatients and patients presenting to the emergency department with orthopedic injuries. This study found that patients demonstrate poor understanding of terminology used commonly by health care professionals, and that patients demonstrated little insight into their lack of comprehension. These findings have implications for doctor-patient communication, informed consent, and patient satisfaction.

The construction and implementation of a clinical decision-making algorithm reduces the cost of adult fracture clinic visits by up to £104,800 per year: a quality improvement study

INTRODUCTION Inappropriate referrals to the new patient fracture clinic unnecessarily consume hospital resources and many hospitals lack clear guidelines as to what should be referred. Many of these injuries can be definitively managed by the emergency department. Our aim was to construct and disseminate a clinical decision-making algorithm to reduce the frequency of inappropriate referrals to fracture clinics at our institution, to improve the management of patients with minor injuries and save the hospital and the patient the cost of unnecessary visits. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data were prospectively collected for all new fracture clinic referrals over two separate 1-week cycles with cohorts of 94 and 74 patients, respectively. After the first cycle, the referral algorithm was disseminated both electronically (intranet) and orally (presentations to emergency department staff). The results of this intervention were examined in the second cycle, which took place 6 months after the first cycle. RESULTS The introduction of this algorithm significantly reduced inappropriate referrals by almost 20% (P = 0.0445). DISCUSSION This simple intervention highlighted a potential annual cost saving of up to £104,000. We advocate the use of this concise algorithm in improving the efficiency of the referral system to fracture clinics.

Doctor–patient communication, patient knowledge and health literacy: how difficult can it all be?

Patients who understand their injuries, the aims and potential of their treatment are likely to experience superior outcomes. We review the literature on positive, encouraging doctor–patient communication, and the impact of health literacy and education on patient knowledge in medicine and surgery, with a particular emphasis on orthopaedic surgery. We also highlight methods of improving doctor–patient communication and patient knowledge.

Patients reject the concept of fragility fracture--a new understanding based on fracture patients' communication

We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not connect fractures to bone health. The term "fragility" fracture was a misnomer to patients who perceived the event as physically and emotionally traumatic. Improved communication about such fractures could facilitate awareness of bone health.

INTRODUCTION

We examined patients' communication about fragility fractures to gain insight into why patients do not perceive the connection between their fracture and low bone mass.

METHODS

A descriptive phenomenological (qualitative) study was conducted. During face-to-face interviews, the participants described the experience of their fracture in detail and the circumstances surrounding the fracture. Data analysis was guided by Giorgi's methodology. English-speaking male and female patients aged 65+ years and "high" risk for future fracture were eligible and screened for osteoporosis through an established screening program at an urban teaching hospital.

RESULTS

We recruited 30 participants (9 males, 21 females), aged 65-88, who presented with a hip (n = 11), wrist (n = 11), shoulder (n = 6), or other (n = 2) fracture. Ten of the 30 fractures occurred inside the home and the remaining fractures occurred outside the home. Sustaining a fragility fracture was perceived as a traumatic event, both physically and emotionally. In general, participants used forceful, action-oriented words and referred to hard surfaces to describe the experience. Explanations for the fracture, other than bone quality, were often reported, especially that falls were "freak" or "fluke" events. Patients who sustained a fracture under more mundane circumstances seemed more likely to perceive a connection between the fracture and their bone health.

CONCLUSIONS

The term fragility fracture was a misnomer for many older adults. By reexamining how this term is communicated to fracture patients, health care providers may better facilitate patients' awareness of bone health.