There’s a old joke about doctor’s handwriting being illegible. These days that’s less of an issue, as patient notes and prescriptions are typed, but this has highlighted a different issue.
The BBC reported today on an initiative to get doctors to communicate with their patients in plain English (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45394620). The problem is manifesting itself in patients making appointments with their GPs, just to ask them to explain what a form of treatment they’re expecting means. The problem seems to be that patients referred to hospitals are receiving appointment letters full of medical jargon they don’t understand.
Take the following excerpt from a hospital discharge report I recently saw for someone I know:
"CTPA showed bilateral segmental and subsegmental PEs. Initial Troponin raised (46) repeat 11."
This was supposed to inform the patient and their GP what had happened to the patient whilst in hospital, and the delivered prognosis.
The problem here is the two audience addressed by the same deliverable. The patient’s GP will understand, but the patient likely won’t.
In instances like this, it is often easier to resort to resort to jargon. It’s the doctor’s own language after all. In just the same as two Network Engineers talking about DHCP or MAC Addresses, That’s fine so long as the audience is the same as them. Try involving an outsider though, and you’re asking for trouble.
You need two separate deliverables, based on the same content. That’s something most Technical Communicators understand and deal with on a daily basis, particularly in a software environment. Whether it is end users or administrators, English or Spanish speakers, you need to have the content for each audience generated from the same source.
Mark Baker asked the question on twitter recently why Technical Communicators find it so hard to explain our profession’s importance. It solicited a fair few responses, yet none really answered the question.
We complain that #techcomm is unappreciated and underfunded, but can we articulate the difficulty of the problem we solve? Unless docs are hard, we don’t merit respect of funding. What is the elevator pitch for why docs are hard to do?
— Mark Baker (@mbakeranalecta) August 31, 2018
It’s an interesting question. We’re good at explaining things within our own specific spheres. We can even turn our hands at different spheres, but try to explain why we’re so important to others and we seem to struggle.
Case studies like the UK doctors help us, in that a direct effect of poor communication has resulting is wasted GP appointments and frustrated patients and doctors. By correlating the time and money spent having these appointments, we can monatise the problem. Armed with that information, we can argue how us working to resolve the issue can save the organisation money.
Maybe there’s a lesson for us there.