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McCartney says that the problem of varying leaflets is not new: a BMJ investigation in 1998 found inaccuracies and outdated information in leaflets given out by general practitioners.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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As