Skip to main content

NHS patient information leaflets are “inaccurate, inconsistent and confusing”

Informed choice is a key ingredient of modern day medical ethics. Many patients now get a variety of information from the internet, but much of the information available can be at best confusing. We might think that leaflets used by the NHS would at least be consistent and clear. Yet this appears not to be the case.

The NHS’s patient information leaflets are “inaccurate, inconsistent, and confusing – and effort is duplicated” argues GP Margaret McCartney on bmj.com.

In a feature published today, Dr McCartney says the NHS is “awash” with patient information and with many trusts commissioning leaflets from external companies and others writing their own, it is difficult to know how efficient and effective these leaflets are.

In a personal view, Dr McCartney says the NHS is “awash” with patient information and with many trusts commissioning leaflets from external companies and others writing their own, it is difficult to know how efficient and effective these leaflets are.

Previous studies have shown that leaflets are providing patients with inconsistent guidance and others are giving conflicting advice. As such, patients are being given very different information depending on where they live.

A study carried out on one set of leaflets for the removal of kidney stones found they did not consistently mention common complications and had a wide variation of information on drugs and pain-killers. Furthermore, complications were often inadequately explained.

Sir Muir Gray, co-chair of the executive council of the Information Standard (a scheme for organisations producing evidence based healthcare information for the public), said “It’s a stupid system, a waste of money, and, without rigorous standards […] the information is biased and misleading”.

McCartney says that the problem of varying leaflets is not new: a BMJ investigation in 1998 found inaccuracies and outdated information in leaflets given out by general practitioners.

One researcher at the University of Oxford says the problem is that “the NHS still fails to take this seriously”, adding that, at the moment, in most NHS trusts there is no one who has responsibility. This means that leaflets can end up amateurish “with the evidence and uncertainties not expressed clearly”.

One spokesman told the BMJ that NHS England is, however, launching a “major project” in September which they hope will “standardise all information”.

McCartney concludes that the challenge now is “to adopt high standards […] updating information regularly and making it easily accessible”. She adds that “this is one area of the NHS where efficiency savings look ripe for the picking”.

From an ethical perspective, it is important to understand that patient leaflets are no substitute for a consultation between doctor and patient. Patient needs in relation to informed consent can be specific and often depends on lifestyle, family or relationships. How a patient ways up options will depend on these personal circumstances and needs. A leaflet is very unlikely to be able to address these specific needs. Doctors should not simply 'inform'; they should also listen  and provide information that helps their patient to make a decision that is relative to their needs and is right for them.

Patients may also seek reassurance that their choice is right. A leaflet is unlikely to help with this. Informed consent is a dialogue in which there is two way information flow between doctor and patient. Nevertheless, leaflets should not be confusing. The truth is that modern medicine for all its advances has a great deal of uncertainty. How we deal with that is tricky. Patients often want answers. Living with uncertainty is difficult for both doctor and patient.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau