Writing for the Wider Public - Readability of Publicly Available Board Reports

Abstract

Objective: This work aims to evaluate the readability of publicly available board reports from the Local Health Networks (LHNs) in South Australia and the National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England. Method: Publicly available board reports from the LHNs in South Australia and NHS Trusts in England were identified, screened, and evaluated from January 2020 to August 2020. Results: The average Flesch Reading Ease score for all LHNs reviewed ranged from 34 ± 10.2 to 57 ± 0.0 (Difficult to Fairly Difficult). In comparison, the average Flesch Reading Ease score for all the NHS Foundation Trusts ranged from 46 ± 1.7 to 60 ± 3.0 (Difficult to Standard). The average Reading Ease score for metropolitan and non-metropolitan LHNs was 43 ± 8.1 and 41 ± 6.0 (Difficult to read). In contrast, the average Reading Ease score for metropolitan and non-metropolitan NHS Trust was Fairly Difficult with 53 ± 4.2 and 50 ± 3.5 respectively. Conclusion: The evaluation results suggest that there is scope for improving the quality of publicly available board reports from the boards reviewed in terms of their readability by the public.

Keywords

• Public Reporting
• Governance Board
• Health Service Management
• Readability
• Public Engagement
• Accountability