Using Health Literacy and Medico-Legal Guidance to Improve Restorative Dentistry Patient Information Leaflets

Authors: Hasneet K. Kalsi, Julie K. Kilgariff

Abstract:

Introduction: Within dentistry, the process for gaining informed consent has become more complex. To consent for treatment, patients must understand all reasonable treatment options and associated risks and benefits. Consenting is therefore deeply embedded in health literacy. Patients attending for dental consultation are often presented with an array of information and choices, yet studies show patients recall less than half of the information provided immediately after. Appropriate and comprehensible patient information leaflets (PILs) may be useful aid memories. In 2016 the World Health Organisation set improving health literacy as a global priority. Soon after, Scotland’s 2017-2025 Making it Easier: A Health Literacy Action Plan followed. This project involved the review of Restorative PILs used within Dundee Dental Hospital to assess the Content and Readability. Method: The current PIL on Root Canal Treatment (RCT) was created in 2011. This predates the Montgomery vs. NHS Lanarkshire case, a ruling which significantly impacted dental consenting processes, as well as General Dental Council’s (GDC’s) Standards for the Dental Team and Faculty of General Dental Practice’s Good Practice Guidance on Clinical Examination and Record-Keeping. Current evidence-based guidance, including that stipulated by the GDC, was reviewed. A 20-point Essential Content Checklist was designed to conform to best practice guidance for valid consenting processes. The RCT leaflet was scored against this to ascertain if the content was satisfactory. Having ensured the content satisfied medicolegal requirements, health literacy considerations were reviewed regarding readability. This was assessed using McLaughlin’s Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) formula, which identifies school stages that would have to be achieved to comprehend the PIL. The sensitivity of the results to alternative readability methods were assessed. Results: The PIL was not sufficient for modern consenting processes and reflected a suboptimal level of health literacy. Evaluation of the leaflet revealed key content was missing, including information pertaining to risks and benefits. Only five points out of the 20-point checklist were present. The readability score was 16, equivalent to a level 2 in National Adult Literacy Standards/Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework Level 5; 62% of Scottish adults are able to read to this standard. Discussion: Assessment of the leaflet showed it was no longer fit for purpose. Reasons include a lack of pertinent information, a text-heavy leaflet lacking flow, and content errors. The SMOG score indicates a high level of comprehension is required to understand this PIL, which many patients may not possess. A new PIL, compliant with medicolegal and health literacy guidance, was designed with patient-driven checklists, notes spaces for annotations/ questions and areas for clinicians to highlight important case-specific information. It has been tested using the SMOG formula. Conclusion: PILs can be extremely useful. Studies show that interactive use can enhance their effectiveness. PILs should reflect best practice guidance and be understood by patients. The 2020 leaflet designed and implemented aims to fulfill the needs of a modern healthcare system and its service users. It embraces and embeds Scotland’s Health Literacy Action Plan within the consenting process. A review of further leaflets using this model is ongoing.

Keywords: consent, health literacy, patient information leaflet, restorative dentistry