Readability of out-patient letters copied to patients: can patients understand what is written about them?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The National Health Service Plan of 2000 proposed that patients should receive a copy of all correspondence regarding their care. There is concern that the readability of patients' letters may not be appropriate for many patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study determined readability scores for sequential letters written to general practitioners and copied to patients, following ENT consultations at the Royal United Hospital in Bath. Intervention involved educating clinicians in techniques to improve readability. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 295 letters from eight clinicians were assessed in the pre-intervention phase. The mean Flesch reading ease score was 61.8 (standard deviation 8.7) and the mean Flesch-Kincaid reading grade was 9.0 (standard deviation 1.7). Re-audit analysed a further 301 letters. There was no significant change in the readability of the letters post-intervention. DISCUSSION: It may not be feasible to present medical information intended for general practitioners in a way that is readable to most of the UK adult population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".