A patient leaves a consultation with a prescription for three medications. Twenty minutes later, he can’t remember which one to take in the morning and which one to take in the evening. This scene repeats every day in clinics, pharmacies, and hospital services. Health communication is not about grand statements, but about these micro-moments where poorly formulated information becomes a management error.
Medical language and real understanding: the gap at the counter
We often talk about adapting the discourse to the patient. In practice, the problem starts with the vocabulary. A term like “antihypertensive” poses no issue for the prescriber, but it can remain completely opaque for the person receiving the prescription.
The gap does not only concern technical words. The very structure of sentences plays a role. An instruction like “to be taken outside of meals, except in case of gastric disturbances, in which case prioritize a meal-time intake” contains three levels of condition. Rephrasing into a short sentence per situation significantly reduces the risk of confusion.
A useful resource for deepening the understanding of patient information with Pharmactuelle details these rephrasing mechanisms, particularly approaches based on health literacy.
The challenge is not to oversimplify, but to verify what the patient has actually understood. The so-called “teach-back” method (asking the patient to rephrase in their own words) remains one of the most reliable ways to assess understanding in real-time.
Patient sheets and written materials: what works, what ends up in the trash
Handing a document to the patient guarantees nothing. We have all seen discharge sheets written in 9-point font, in two columns, with dense paragraphs and intact medical jargon. These materials end up crumpled at the bottom of a bag.
The sheets that work share some concrete characteristics:
- A title that reflects the reason for the consultation (“After your ankle sprain” rather than “Information sheet – traumatology”)
- Instructions formulated in the imperative with clear temporal markers (“Take the white tablet every morning at breakfast”)
- A spacious format with pictograms or diagrams for actions to be taken (dressing application, immobilization position)
- A phone contact or a QR code for asking questions afterwards
The European regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 on clinical trials has formalized this requirement: trial summaries must be written in language understandable to non-specialists. This regulatory obligation shows that adapted writing is no longer an option, even in the most technical scientific fields.
Online lab results: when the patient reads before the doctor
Patient portals and health apps now provide access to biological results within hours. The problem is that the majority of patients who check their results online do not understand the reference values or the units displayed.
A creatinine level slightly above normal can trigger disproportionate anxiety. Conversely, a high inflammatory marker may be ignored because the patient does not know what it means. Access to data without support creates as many problems as it solves.
Several avenues can help limit these situations:
- Add an automated comment in plain language under each result (“This result is in the normal range for your age”)
- Delay the posting of sensitive results (oncology, serology) until the healthcare professional has been able to contact the patient
- Integrate a “Ask my doctor a question” button directly into the portal, to prevent the patient from seeking answers on unverified forums
Feedback varies on this point: some professionals believe that the delay in posting frustrates patients, while others consider that a pathology result read alone on a Friday evening causes more harm than waiting until Monday.
Cognitive accessibility: an obligation coming to Europe
Spain has adopted a regulatory framework on the basic conditions of cognitive accessibility, in application of Law 6/2022 and RD 193/2023. Starting January 2, 2027, public information and services, including those related to health and safety, must be understandable for people with comprehension difficulties.
Concretely, this means that health documents must be provided in simplified text, with pictograms or audio supports. This Spanish regulation is the most advanced in Europe on the subject, but other countries are following this direction.
For caregivers, this evolution changes the game. We are no longer just talking about adapting one’s discourse to a “general” audience, but about designing materials that work for people with very different literacy levels: elderly individuals, non-native patients, people with intellectual disabilities.
Digital tools and patient communication: choosing what really serves
Digital health systems are multiplying: secure messaging, appointment reminders via SMS, pre-consultation chatbots. The temptation is to pile on the tools. In practice, the teams that truly improve the quality of their patient communication are those that select one or two channels and use them correctly.
A reminder SMS with fasting instructions before a blood test does more for patient safety than a comprehensive app that no one opens. The most effective tool is the one that the patient actually uses.
Trust between caregiver and patient is rarely built through a screen. Digital tools serve as a relay, not a replacement. A message sent after a consultation to summarize the three key points extends the human exchange. A portal that overwhelms the patient with uncontextualized data cuts them off from their doctor.
Health communication progresses when we start from what the patient understands, not from what we want to tell them. Every material, every tool, every rephrasing must pass this filter. The rest is noise.
