"What Are My Injuries?" Health Literacy and Patient Comprehension of Trauma Care and Injuries

Health literacy in orthopaedic lower limb trauma patients: A cross-sectional survey study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate orthopaedic lower limb trauma patients' comprehension regarding the affected bone, the surgical implant used, and postoperative instructions, and to evaluate the relationship between sociodemographic features and health literacy.

HYPOTHESIS

There is a relationship between health literacy levels, the medical awareness of orthopaedic trauma patients and sociodemographic characteristics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The cross-sectional survey study was conducted from June to September 2021 in the orthopaedic clinic of a level 1 trauma centre. The study group consisted of 225 patients with a surgically treated unilateral lower limb fracture. The questionnaire consisted of 3 parts: (1) sociodemographic information, (2) knowledge about ongoing orthopaedic treatment, and (3) 16-item version of The European Health Literacy Survey (HLS-EU-Q16).

RESULTS

Of the patients in the study, 46% were not aware that they were using thromboembolism prophylaxis, and 10% did not use the prophylaxis. More than half of the patients did not know which bone was fractured, three-quarters did not know what type of implant had been used for the fracture fixation, and approximately 90% of the patients did not know their weight-bearing status and the expected healing time after surgery. Inadequacy of HLS-EU-Q16 score with a median of 34.4, (range, 0-50) was 38.7% (n=87).

DISCUSSION

Orthopaedic lower limb trauma patients demonstrated inadequate health literacy with low comprehension of their injuries, surgeries, and discharge schemes. This study's results show the need to promote more effective communication between orthopaedic trauma patients and healthcare providers. Identifying inadequate health literacy in patients and developing appropriate interventions before discharge may help improve outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; cross sectional.

Assessment Tools for Measuring Health Literacy and Digital Health Literacy in a Hospital Setting: A Scoping Review

Assessment of (digital) health literacy in the hospital can raise staff awareness and facilitate tailored communication, leading to improved health outcomes. Assessment tools should ideally address multiple domains of health literacy, fit to the complex hospital context and have a short administration time, to enable routine assessment. This review aims to create an overview of tools for measuring (digital) health literacy in hospitals. A search in Scopus, PubMed, WoS and CINAHL, following PRISMA guidelines, generated 7252 hits; 251 studies were included in which 44 assessment tools were used. Most tools (57%) were self-reported and 27% reported an administration time of <5 min. Almost all tools addressed the domain 'understanding' (98%), followed by 'access' (52%), 'apply' (50%), 'appraise' (32%), 'numeracy' (18%), and 'digital' (18%). Only four tools were frequently used: the Newest Vital Sign (NVS), the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy for Adults ((S)TOFHLA), the Brief Health Literacy Screener (BHLS), and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). While the NVS and BHLS have a low administration time, they cover only two domains. HLQ covers the most domains: access, understanding, appraise, and apply. None of these four most frequently used tools measured digital skills. This review can guide health professionals in choosing an instrument that is feasible in their daily practice, and measures the required domains.

Perceptions of an Interactive Trauma Recovery Information Booklet

BACKGROUND

Previous research has shown that people with traumatic injuries have unmet information needs with respect to their injuries, management, and recovery. An interactive trauma recovery information booklet was developed and implemented to address these information needs at a major trauma center in Victoria, Australia.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this quality improvement project was to explore patient and clinician perceptions of a recovery information booklet introduced into a trauma ward.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews with trauma patients, family members, and health professionals were undertaken and thematically analyzed using a framework approach. In total, 34 patients, 10 family members, and 26 health professionals were interviewed.

RESULTS

Overall, the booklet was well accepted by most participants and was perceived to contain useful information. The design, content, pictures, and readability were all positively appraised. Many participants used the booklet to record personalized information and to ask health professionals questions about their injuries and management.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the usefulness and acceptability of a low-cost interactive booklet intervention to facilitate the provision of quality of information and patient-health professional interactions on a trauma ward.

Who is informed of trauma informed care? Patients' primary language and comprehensiveness of initial trauma assessment

BACKGROUND

For patients with limited English proficiency, language poses a unique challenge in patient-provider communication. Using certified medical interpretation (CMI) can be difficult in time- and resource-limited settings including trauma. We hypothesized that there would be limited use of CMI during major trauma resuscitations, less comprehensive assessments, and less empathetic communication for Spanish-speaking patients (SSPs) with limited English proficiency compared with English-speaking patients (ESPs).

METHODS

We analyzed video-recorded encounters of trauma initial assessments at a Level 1 trauma center. Each encounter was evaluated from patient arrival until completion of the secondary survey per Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol. A standard checklist of provider actions was used to assess comprehensiveness of the primary and secondary surveys and communication events such as provider introduction, reassurances, and communicating next steps to patients. We compared the SSP and ESP cohorts for significant differences in completion of checklist items.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 14 and 15 were included (25 SSPs, 25 ESPs). The median age was 34 years (interquartile range, 25-65 years) for SSPs and 40 years (interquartile range, 29-54 years) for ESPs. In SSPs, 72% were male; in ESPs, 60% were male. Spanish-speaking patients received less comprehensive motor (48% complete SSPs vs. 96% ESPs, p < 0.001) and sensory (4% complete SSPs vs. 68% ESPs, p < 0.001) examinations, and less often had providers explain next steps (32% SSPs vs. 96% ESPs, p < 0.001) or reassure them (44% SSPs vs. 88% ESPs, p = 0.001). No patients were asked their primary language. Two SSP encounters (8%) used CMI; most (80%) used ad hoc interpretation, and 12% used English.

CONCLUSION

We found significant differences in the initial care provided to trauma patients based on primary language. Inclusion of an interpreter as part of the trauma team may improve the quality of care provided to trauma patients with limited English proficiency.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.