Relationship Between Orthopedic Surgeon’s Empathy and Inpatient Hospital Experience Scores in a Tertiary Care Academic Institution

Studies have examined the relationship between physician empathy and patient experience, but few have explored it in surgeons. The purpose of this study was to report on orthopedic surgeon empathy in a mutlispecialty practice and explore its association with orthopedic patient experience. Patients completed the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure (March 2017-August 2018) and Canadian Patient Experience Survey-Inpatient Care (CPES-IC; March 2017-February 2019) to assess empathy and patient experience, respectively. Consultation and relational empathy measures were correlated to CPES-IC for 3 surgeon-related questions pertaining to respect, listening, and explaining. Surgeon CARE scores (n = 1134) ranged from 42.0 ± 9.1 to 48.6 ± 2.4 with 50.4% of patients rating their surgeon as perfectly empathic. There were no significant differences between surgeons for CPES-IC continuous and topbox scores (n = 834) for respect and correlations between CPES-IC questions. The CARE measure for both continuous and topbox scores were weak to moderate, but none were significant. Empathy was associated with surgeon respect and careful listening, despite lack of significant correlation. Possible future work could use an empathy tool more appropriate for this surgeon population.

Assessment of Canadian patient education material for oncology pharmaceutics

Introduction Health literacy is an individual’s ability to access, understand, and utilize information in order to create an informed decision regarding their health. Readability plays an integral role in health literacy as complex health information may be inaccessible to those with low health literacy. The aim of this study is to determine the readability of Canadian patient education material (PEM) for oncology related pharmaceutics. Methods Eighty PEMs from Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) and BC Cancer (BCC) were evaluated for their reading level using a Ford, Caylor, Sticht (FORCAST) analysis. Twenty therapies were then randomly selected and converted to plain text to be analyzed further using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, the Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and the Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Results Both PEMs from CCO and BCC were above the recommended reading level with PEMs from CCO, on average, requiring a higher reading level. Within the text, the section which describes side effects was found to be the most complex section of the representative PEMs from BCC. PEMs from BCC which described antibody-based therapies were, on average, more difficult to read than small molecule-based therapies regardless from which section the PEM was being analyzed. These observations were not seen in CCO PEMs. Conclusions Overall, online PEMs from major Canadian cancers associations were written above the recommended reading level. Consideration should be given to revision of these materials, with emphasis on the therapies’ side effects, to allow for greater comprehension amongst a wider target audience.