Five-step methodology for evaluation and adaptation of print patient health information to meet the < 5th grade readability criterion.

BACKGROUND: In the setting of declining U.S. literacy, new policies include use of clear communication and low-literacy accessibility practices with all patients. Reliable methods for adapting health information to meet such criteria remain a pressing need. OBJECTIVES: To report method validation (study 1) and method replication (study 2) procedures and outcomes for a 5-step method for evaluating and adapting print health information to meet the current low-literacy criterion of <5th grade readability. MATERIALS: Sets of 18 and 11 publicly disseminated patient education documents developed by a university affiliated medical center. MEASURES: Three low-literacy criteria were strategically targeted for efficient, systematic evaluation, and text modification to meet a <5th grade reading level: sentence length <15 words, writing in active voice, and use of common words with multisyllabic words (>2-3 syllables) minimized or avoided. Interrater reliability for the document evaluations was determined. RESULTS: Training in the methodology resulted in interrater reliability of 0.99-1.00 in study 1 and 0.98-1.00 in study 2. Original documents met none of the targeted low literacy criteria. In study 1, following low-literacy adaptation, mean reading grade level decreased from 10.4±1.8 to 3.8±0.6 (P<0.0001), with consistent achievement of criteria for words per sentence, passive voice, and syllables per word. Study 2 demonstrated similar achievement of all target criteria, with a resulting decrease in mean reading grade level from 11.0±1.8 to 4.6±0.3 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-step methodology proved teachable and efficient. Targeting a limited set of modifiable criteria was effective and reliable in achieving <5th grade readability.

Preventability of early vs. late readmissions in an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if the 30-day unplanned hospital readmission rate is a plausible accountability metric. OBJECTIVE: Compare preventability of hospital readmissions, between an early period [0-7 days post-discharge] and a late period [8-30 days post-discharge]. Compare causes of readmission, and frequency of markers of clinical instability 24h prior to discharge between early and late readmissions. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: 120 patient readmissions in an academic medical center between 1/1/2009-12/31/2010. MEASURES: Sum-score based on a standard algorithm that assesses preventability of each readmission based on blinded hospitalist review; average causation score for seven types of adverse events; rates of markers of clinical instability within 24h prior to discharge. RESULTS: Readmissions were significantly more preventable in the early compared to the late period [median preventability sum score 8.5 vs. 8.0, p = 0.03]. There were significantly more management errors as causative events for the readmission in the early compared to the late period [mean causation score [scale 1-6, 6 most causal] 2.0 vs. 1.5, p = 0.04], and these errors were significantly more preventable in the early compared to the late period [mean preventability score 1.9 vs 1.5, p = 0.03]. Patients readmitted in the early period were significantly more likely to have mental status changes documented 24h prior to hospital discharge than patients readmitted in the late period [12% vs. 0%, p = 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: Readmissions occurring in the early period were significantly more preventable. Early readmissions were associated with more management errors, and mental status changes 24h prior to discharge. Seven-day readmissions may be a better accountability measure.