Readability of hospice materials to prepare families for caregiving at the time of death.

Many health care materials are not written at levels that can be understood by most lay people. In this descriptive study, we examined the readability of documents used by hospices to prepare families for caregiving at the time of death. We used two common formulae to examine the documents. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 8.95 (SD 1.80). The mean Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade level was 11.06 (SD 1.36). When we used the Colors Label Ease for Adult Readers instrument, it became evident that medical terminology was the primary reason for the high-grade levels. Most documents (78%) included medical terms that were directly (46.2%) or indirectly (25.6%) explained in the text. Modification of hospice materials could improve families' comprehension of information important for optimal end-of-life care.

Does sharing research data with participating hospices affect practice?

BACKGROUND: The research question guiding this study was, "Does receiving individualized feedback about the findings of a research study that the hospice participated in affect clinical practice?" Three issues were examined: (1) Did anyone at the hospice recall receiving the research results? (2) Were the findings shared with the hospice staff? and (3) Did the findings influence clinical practice in the hospice? METHODS: The sample was 170 hospices that participated in a previous study examining the written materials used by hospices to prepare families for death. Participating hospices were sent individualized feedback concerning the signs of impending death and types of information that were present in their hospice's materials. Approximately 1 year later, participating hospices received a follow-up survey. RESULTS: Sixty-five hospices (40.1%) completed the survey, 33 of these (50.8%) said they received the results of the previous research, 9 (13.8%) said they did not, and 23 (35.4%) said they did not know. All hospices that said that they received the data shared it with the others in the agency. Twenty-six (78.8% of those who recalled receiving the data) said that they made some change to how they prepare families for the patient's death and 11 said the changes were related to the research results they received. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that providing feedback to agencies or individuals who participate in some descriptive studies may be used to promote improvements in clinical care.