Patient Comprehension of Emergency Department Care and Instructions: Are Patients Aware of When They Do Not Understand?
Study objective
To be able to adhere to discharge instructions after a visit to the emergency department (ED), patients should understand both the care that they received and their discharge instructions. The objective of this study is to assess, at discharge, patients' comprehension of their ED care and instructions and their awareness of deficiencies in their comprehension.
Methods
We conducted structured interviews of 140 adult English-speaking patients or their primary caregivers after ED discharge in 2 health systems. Participants rated their subjective understanding of 4 domains: (1) diagnosis and cause; (2) ED care; (3) post-ED care, and (4) return instructions. We assessed patient comprehension as the degree of agreement (concordance) between patients' recall of each of these domains and information obtained from chart review. Two authors scored each case independently and discussed discrepancies before providing a final concordance rating (no concordance, minimal concordance, partial concordance, near concordance, complete concordance).
Results
Seventy-eight percent of patients demonstrated deficient comprehension (less than complete concordance) in at least 1 domain; 51% of patients, in 2 or more domains. Greater than a third of these deficiencies (34%) involved patients' understanding of post-ED care, whereas only 15% were for diagnosis and cause. The majority of patients with comprehension deficits failed to perceive them. Patients perceived difficulty with comprehension only 20% of the time when they demonstrated deficient comprehension.
Conclusion
Many patients do not understand their ED care or their discharge instructions. Moreover, most patients appear to be unaware of their lack of understanding and report inappropriate confidence in their comprehension and recall.
Supervising editor: J. Stephan Stapczynski, MD
Author contributions: KGE, MH, DMS, and PAU conceived the study and designed the survey tools. KGE and PAU trained the research assistants. KGE supervised the research assistants and the data collection process. All 6 authors met on a biweekly basis to discuss the project's progress and to generate the coder's guidelines. At the completion of data collection, all of the authors participated in the analysis of comprehension scores and met for debriefing sessions. KGE was responsible for the remainder of the data analysis and initial drafting of the article. PAU was responsible for a preliminary revision of the article. All authors contributed substantially to subsequent revisions. KGE takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article that might create any potential conflict of interest. The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement.
Publication dates: Available online July 10, 2008.
Reprints not available from the authors.
PII: S0196-0644(08)00831-7
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.05.016
© 2008 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

