Table 1 Questionnaire (translated from German). CDL = conventional discharge letter, PFDL = patient-friendly discharge letter. Section i) included only questions on demographic data and is not shown. ES = effect size (Cohen’s d), * = small effect (d > 0.2), ** = moderate effect (d > 0.5), *** = large effect (d > 0.8). Values are given in medians (interquartile range, IQR), significant p-values in bold
Questions (translated from German) | CDL | PFDL | ES (d) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Section i, (demographic data, not shown) | ||||
Section ii, structure – overall | 2 (1–2) | 1 (1–2) | 0.50** | 0.005 |
2.1 Is the layout clear? | 2 (1–2) | 1 (1–2) | 0.51** | 0.042 |
2.2 Is the structure comprehensible? | 2 (1–2) | 1 (1–2) | 0.11 | 0.545 |
2.3 Does the content justify the length of the document? | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–2) | 0.74** | 0.001 |
Section iii, content – overall | 3 (2–3) | 1 (1–2) | 1.26*** | < 0.001 |
3.1 Are the used abbreviations clear? | 3 (2–4) | 2 (1–4) | 0.24* | 0.216 |
3.2 Are abbreviations explained? | 6 (5–6) | 2 (1–4) | 2.13*** | < 0.001 |
3.3 Is the referral letter phrased in a comprehensible way? | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–2) | 0.43* | 0.006 |
3.4 Is the chronological sequence of events during hospital stay presented in a conclusive manner? | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–2) | 0.42* | 0.130 |
3.5 Are main and secondary diagnoses clearly evident? | 1 (1–2) | 1 (1–1) | 0.35* | 0.278 |
3.6 Are the reasons for the therapeutic approach during hospital stay comprehensible? | 2 (1–3) | 1.5 (1–3) | 0.43* | 0.090 |
3.7 Are therapy recommendations and goals of rehabilitation clear? | 2 (1–5) | 1 (1–2) | 0.69** | 0.004 |
3.8 Are the therapeutic steps taken described in detail and comprehensible? | 2 (1–4) | 2 (1–2) | 0.72** | 0.008 |
3.9 Is the recommended medication described in detail, including trade name, active ingredient, dosage and route of administration? | 2 (1–4) | 1 (1–1) | 1.01*** | < 0.001 |
3.10 Is there information concerning possible allergies? | 6 (6–6) | 1 (1–1) | 4.40*** | < 0.001 |
3.11 Is contact information of a doctor provided for possible queries? | 3 (1–5) | 1 (1–2) | 1.00*** | < 0.001 |
Section iv, patient-friendliness – overall | 6 (5–6) | 2 (1–2) | 2.72*** | < 0.001 |
4.1 Would a medical layperson be able to understand the content of the referral letter? | 6 (5–6) | 3 (2–4) | 1.94*** | < 0.001 |
4.2 Would the indication of the prescribed medication be comprehensible for a medical layperson? | 6 (5–6) | 1 (1–2) | 3.23*** | < 0.001 |
4.3 Would a medical layperson be able to deduce necessary further diagnostic or therapeutic measures from the referral letter? | 4 (2–5) | 1 (1–2) | 1.31*** | < 0.001 |
Overall score | 3 (2–3) | 1 (1–2) | 1.38*** | < 0.001 |