This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background Patient experience and clinical outcomes are improved when patients know what to expect. Providing valuable, appropriate information proves challenging considering variation in patient education, literacy, and limitations specific to patients with neurologic disease. Scaffolding of what to expect, care team members, needed materials, procedures, directions to facilities, and methods of communication are core aspects of improving patient readiness.
Methods This study employed standard quality improvement methods. An existing (original) patient welcome letter was first analyzed to assess its literacy levels. Surveys were then administered to patients with neurologic disease assessing perception of readiness for ambulatory appointments and the overall value of the welcome letter. In addition to Likert-type scales, patients also provided open feedback on what should be included in the letter. A revised letter was then created with added content, improving literacy levels. The letter was further assessed through clinical and nonclinical groups including our neuromedicine Patient and Family Advisory Council. Response data were analyzed comparing the original vs the revised score using a t test assuming equal variances.
Results The “overall value” score of the original welcome letter (3.79 of 5.0) improved to the revised score (4.63 of 5.0). Patients perceived the revised welcome letter as improving their readiness significantly as ambulatory patients with neurologic disease.
Conclusions Preparing patients for their neurology visits is important and affects visits' value. Sensitivity to literacy levels is an essential component of person-centered care among neurologic patients. Carefully created and assessed welcome letters help to achieve these goals by improving readiness for outpatient appointments and increases perceived overall value significantly.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
- Received July 20, 2018.
- Accepted September 4, 2018.
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members: Sign in with your AAN member credentials (e-mail or 6-digit Member ID number)
Non-AAN Member Subscribers: Sign in with subscriber credentials
Log in using your username and password
Purchase access
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All contributors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.cp.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.