Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Language in Discharge Advice

Prompt: Collect publicly available discharge‑information leaflets for conditions like minor head injury or chest pain from Emergency Department or urgent care websites, then analyse readability & clarity and directness of safety‑netting advice (“come back if…”), and emphasis on key information.


Task Overview

This task asks you to explore real NHS patient information leaflets used when patients are discharged from Emergency Departments. You can examine how clearly they communicate risk, safety instructions, and follow‑up advice — especially for people with different literacy levels.

You will focus on:

    • Readability & Clarity (sentence length, use of jargon or everyday vocabulary)
    • Safety‑netting advice (how direct or indirect instructions are regarding warming signs to watch for or what to do if patient’s condition changes or worsens, e.g., ‘return if…’)
    • Emphasis on key information (e.g., how contact information about who to call, where to go, or available hours are featured)

To get you started

1. Choose 2–4 leaflets

Below are some suggested leaflets on head‑injury and chest‑pain. You may compare how different hospitals provide discharge information on the same type of injury, or compare how discharge information sheets differ across different injuries.

Minor Head Injury / Concussion

2. Analyse readability & clarity

Pay attention to the use of:

  • Short vs. long sentences
  • Medical jargon (e.g., “photophobia,” “troponin,” “neurological deficit”)
  • Plain‑language alternatives or lack of them
  • Bullet points vs. large paragraphs
  • Whether explanations feel accessible for people with lower literacy

Ask yourself:

  • Does the leaflet speak to the patient directly (“you should…”)?
  • Are instructions clear and actionable?
  • Could someone with lower language proficiency understand this?

3. Evaluate Safety‑Netting Advice (“come back if…” statements)

Look for:

  • Level of directness: “Return to A&E immediately if you develop vomiting, worsening headache…”
  • Strength of instruction, such as referencing the use of modal verbs or imperative:
    “should,” “must,” “seek urgent help,” “call 999”
  • Clear thresholds for action, such as with the use of conditionals (“if symptoms last more than two weeks…”)

Consider:

  • Are danger signs obvious?
  • Is urgency communicated clearly?
  • Are instructions regarding what to vague or concrete?

4. Identify how key information is emphasised

For example:

  • How is key contact information featured (e.g., in bold fonts, in a big box, with colour)?
  • How about warning signs presented (e.g., in bullet points, in a paragraph, with pictures)?
  • If there are Dos and Don’ts, how are they written?

5. Compare leaflets

Write a short comparison:

  • Which leaflet uses more patient‑friendly language?
  • Which offers safety‑netting guidance that is the most concrete and easiest to follow?
  • Which leaflet is the clearest in communication risk and how to respond to risk, or, which parts of which leaflets are clearest in doing so?


5. Produce a short summary

End with a brief reflection on:

  • How well ED discharge leaflets communicate risk
  • What could be improved (simpler language, better layout, visuals, more examples, clearer urgency)

Let us know you agree to cookies