Surgical | Medical | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions | CDL | PFDL | ES (d) | p-value | CDL | PFDL | ES (d) | p-value |
Section i, (demographic data, not shown) | ||||||||
Section ii, structure – overall | 2 (2-2.5) | 1 (1–2) | 0.89*** | 0.005 | 1 (1–2) | 1 (1–2) | 0.09 | 0.988 |
2.1 Is the layout clear? | 2 (1.5-3) | 1 (1-1.75) | 0.99*** | 0.004 | 1 (1–2) | 1.5 (1–2) | 0.15 | 0.719 |
2.2 Is the structure comprehensible? | 2 (2–2) | 1 (1–2) | 0.71** | 0.039 | 1 (1–2) | 1 (1–3) | 0.63** | 0.214 |
2.3 Does the content justify the length of the document? | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–2) | 0.49* | 0.152 | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–1) | 1.04*** | 0.004 |
Section iii, content – overall | 2 (2–3) | 1 (1–2) | 1.01*** | 0.006 | 3 (1.75-4) | 1 (1–2) | 1.50*** | < 0.001 |
3.1 Are the used abbreviations clear? | 2 (1-3.5) | 3 (2–5) | 0.30* | 0.352 | 3 (2.75-5) | 2 (1–2) | 0.92*** | 0.003 |
3.2 Are abbreviations explained? | 6 (5–6) | 2 (1–4) | 1.52*** | < 0.001 | 6 (6–6) | 1.5 (1–3) | 3.06*** | < 0.001 |
3.3 Is the referral letter phrased in a comprehensible way? | 2 (2–3) | 1 (1–3) | 0.17 | 0.170 | 2 (1–3) | 1 (1–2) | 0.76** | 0.051 |
3.4 Is the chronological sequence of events during hospital stay presented in a conclusive manner? | 2 (1.5–3.5) | 2 (1–3) | 0.43* | 0.308 | 2 (1–3) | 1.5 (1–2) | 0.38* | 0.424 |
3.5 Are main and secondary diagnoses clearly evident? | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | 0.02 | 0.885 | 1 (1–3) | 1 (1–1) | 0.70** | 0.171 |
3.6 Are the reasons for the therapeutic approach during hospital stay comprehensible? | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 0.49* | 0.280 | 2 (1-3.25) | 1 (1-2.25) | 0.40* | 0.279 |
3.7 Are therapy recommendations and goals of rehabilitation clear? | 2 (1-3.5) | 1 (1–1) | 0.98*** | 0.006 | 3 (1–5) | 1.5 (1–3) | 0.55** | 0.161 |
3.8 Are the therapeutic steps taken described in detail and comprehensible? | 2 (1.5–3.5) | 1 (1–2) | 0.71** | 0.036 | 2.5 (1-4.25) | 2 (1–3) | 0.73** | 0.118 |
3.9 Is the recommended medication described in detail, including trade name, active ingredient, dosage and route of administration? | 1 (1-4.5) | 1 (1–1) | 0.85*** | 0.026 | 2.5 (1.75-4) | 1 (1–1) | 1.22*** | 0.001 |
3.10 Is there information concerning possible allergies? | 6 (5–6) | 1 (1–1) | 4.60*** | < 0.001 | 6 (6–6) | 1 (1–1) | 4.07*** | < 0.001 |
3.11 Is contact information of a doctor provided for possible queries? | 2 (1–4) | 1 (1–2) | 0.72** | 0.030 | 4 (1.5-6) | 1 (1–1) | 1.30*** | 0.001 |
Section iv, patient-friendliness – overall | 5 (4–6) | 2 (1–2) | 2.53*** | < 0.001 | 6 (5–6) | 2 (1–3) | 3.14*** | < 0.001 |
4.1 Would a medical layperson be able to understand the content of the referral letter? | 6 (5–6) | 2 (2–4) | 1.69*** | < 0.001 | 6 (5–6) | 3 (2–4) | 2.19*** | < 0.001 |
4.2 Would the indication of the prescribed medication be comprehensible for a medical layperson? | 6 (4.5-6) | 1 (1–2) | 2.82*** | < 0.001 | 6 (5.75-6) | 2 (1-2.25) | 4.18*** | < 0.001 |
4.3 Would a medical layperson be able to deduce necessary further diagnostic or therapeutic measures from the referral letter? | 3 (2.5-5) | 2 (1–2) | 1.52*** | < 0.001 | 4 (2-5.25) | 1 (1-2.25) | 1.18*** | 0.001 |
Overall | 2 (2–3) | 1 (1–2) | 1.24*** | < 0.001 | 3 (2–4) | 1 (1–2) | 1.50*** | < 0.001 |