Patient satisfaction with a consumer codesigned lower limb cellulitis leaflet
Jaclyn L. Bishop
A B C M , Mark Jones C , James Farquharson D , Kathrine Summerhayes E , Roxanne Tucker E , Mary Smith F , Raquel Cowan G , N. Deborah Friedman H I , Thomas R. Schulz A J K , David C. M. Kong A B C L and Kirsty L. Buising A B J K
A National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, Peter Doherty Research Institute for Infection and Immunity, The University of Melbourne, Level 5, 792 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia.
B The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine – The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Royal Parade, Melbourne, Vic. 3050, Australia.
C Pharmacy Department, Ballarat Health Services, Drummond Street, Ballarat, Vic. 3350, Australia. Email: mark.jones@bhs.org.au; david.kong@bhs.org.au
D Pharmacy Department, Colac Area Health, Connor Street, Colac, Vic. 3250, Australia. Email: JFarquharson@cah.vic.gov.au
E Clinical Improvement, Risk and Innovation, Wimmera Health Care Group, Baillie Street, Horsham, Vic. 3400, Australia. Email: Kathrine.Summerhayes@whcg.org.au; roxanne.tucker@whcg.org.au
F Department of Health (Victoria), McLachlan Street, Horsham, Vic. 3400, Australia.
G Department of Internal Medicine, Ballarat Health Services, Drummond Street, Ballarat, Vic. 3350, Australia. Email: Raquel.Cowan@bhs.org.au
H Department of Infectious Diseases, Barwon Health, Ryrie Street, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email: deborahf@barwonhealth.org.au
I School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Pigdons Road, Waurn Ponds, Vic. 3216, Australia.
J Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3050, Australia. Email: thomas.schulz@mh.org.au; Kirsty.Buising@mh.org.au
K Department of Infectious Diseases, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, University of Melbourne, 792 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia.
L Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia.
M Corresponding author. Email: jaclynb@student.unimelb.edu.au
Australian Health Review 46(1) 115-120 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH21083
Submitted: 11 March 2021 Accepted: 30 June 2021 Published: 12 November 2021
Abstract
Objective This study evaluated whether a consumer codesigned leaflet about the common skin infection cellulitis would improve patient satisfaction.
Methods A patient information leaflet was codesigned with consumers incorporating health literacy principles and attached to a new adult lower limb cellulitis management plan launched in three regional Victorian health services. Health service staff were educated to provide the leaflet during hospital care. Patients discharged with a diagnosis of cellulitis in an 8-month period were followed-up via telephone between 31 and 60 days after their discharge. Each patient was asked to provide feedback on the utility of the leaflet (if received) and their overall satisfaction with the information provided to them using a five-point scale (with scores of 4 or 5 considered to indicate satisfaction).
Results In all, 81 of 127 (64%) patients (or carers) were contactable, consented to the study and answered the questions. Of these, 27% (n = 22) reported receiving, accepting and reading the leaflet. The proportion of patients who were satisfied with the information provided to them about cellulitis was 100% for those who received the leaflet, compared with 78% for those who did not receive the leaflet (95% confidence interval 4.8–34%; P = 0.02).
Conclusion The provision of a consumer codesigned leaflet increased patient satisfaction with the information received about cellulitis. Real-world strategies to embed the delivery of such resources are required to ensure that more patients receive the benefit.
What is known about the topic? There are known deficiencies in the information provided to patients about the common skin condition cellulitis. There is little published evaluation of strategies to address these knowledge deficiencies.
What does this paper add? This study evaluated a simple strategy to address patient knowledge deficiencies on cellulitis. It highlights that pertinent information delivered in an accessible way can significantly increase patient satisfaction with the information provided to them.
What are the implications for practitioners? These findings are a timely reminder for practitioners that even a simple intervention, such a providing a hard copy information leaflet, can improve patient satisfaction. A national repository of similar consumer codesigned materials would be valuable and could minimise existing duplication of effort in resource development across health sectors. Real-world strategies to embed the delivery of such resources is required to ensure that more patients receive the benefit.
Keywords: health services research, infectious diseases, quality and safety.
References
[1] Antibiotic Expert Groups. Therapeutic guidelines: antibiotic. 16th edn. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited; 2019.[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Potentially preventable hospitalisations in Australia by age groups and small geographic areas, 2017–18. Canberra: AIHW; 2019.
[3] Fisher JM, Feng JY, Tan SY, et al Analysis of Readmissions Following Hospitalization for Cellulitis in the United States. JAMA Dermatol 2019; 155 720–723.
| Analysis of Readmissions Following Hospitalization for Cellulitis in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30810708PubMed |
[4] National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship and Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Antimicrobial prescribing practice in Australian Hospitals Results of the 2019 Hospital National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2021.
[5] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). The second Australian atlas of healthcare variation. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2017.
[6] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). AURA 2019: third Australian report on antimicrobial use and resistance in human health. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2019.
[7] Teasdale E, Lalonde A, Muller I, et al Patients’ understanding of cellulitis and their information needs: A mixed-methods study in primary and secondary care. Br J Gen Pract 2019; 69 e279–86.
| Patients’ understanding of cellulitis and their information needs: A mixed-methods study in primary and secondary care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30858335PubMed |
[8] Carter K, Kilburn S, Featherstone P. Cellulitis and treatment: a qualitative study of experiences. Br J Nurs. 2007; 16 S22–28.
| Cellulitis and treatment: a qualitative study of experiences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17505397PubMed |
[9] Santer M, Lalonde A, Francis NA, et al Management of cellulitis: current practice and research questions. Br J Gen Pract 2018; 68 595–6.
| Management of cellulitis: current practice and research questions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30498163PubMed |
[10] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Fact sheet 4 – Health literacy – Writing health information for consumers. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2017.
[11] McLaughlin G. SMOG Grading — a New Readability Formula. J Read 1969; 12 639–46.
[12] Wiles R, Pain H, Buckland S, et al Providing appropriate information to patients and carers following a stroke. J Adv Nurs 1998; 28 794–801.
| Providing appropriate information to patients and carers following a stroke.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 9829668PubMed |
[13] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Antimicrobial Stewardship Clinical Care Standard. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2020.
[14] Yeoh K, George C, Rajkhowa A, et al Assessing patient understanding of their antimicrobial treatment: How are we doing and how might we improve? Infect Dis Health 2020; 25 302–8.
| Assessing patient understanding of their antimicrobial treatment: How are we doing and how might we improve?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32792299PubMed |
[15] Presseau J, McCleary N, Lorencatto F, et al Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour. Implement Sci 2019; 14 102
| Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31806037PubMed |
