Skip to main content
Nursing Open logoLink to Nursing Open
editorial
. 2025 Mar 14;12(3):e70187. doi: 10.1002/nop2.70187

Effective Health Communication to Reduce Avoidable Readmission: Enhancing Understanding for Patients and Families

Elisabeth Coyne 1,2,, Karin B Dieperink 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC11907237  PMID: 40084582

Globally, 5% of patients are readmitted within 30 days, costing $17 billion USD, with 27% of these readmissions avoidable with better understanding and follow‐up (Chua and Johnson 2022). Improved communication is central to addressing preventable readmissions, which are costly and often avoidable with effective discharge practices. Communication of health information and follow‐up communication are fundamental to helping patients and families manage at home. Avoidable readmissions are linked to poor long‐term health outcomes and reduced chronic disease management (Xiao et al. 2024).

Good communication in healthcare is more than transferring information to another person; it is about ensuring they truly understand and can use this information (Moore et al. 2024). Communication plays a key role in helping patients and families understand health conditions, solve problems and make informed decisions (Coyne et al. 2025). In this editorial, I will explore communication and strategies to improve communication with patients and families. The relationship between health literacy and communication and the influence of health literacy on patient and family outcomes will be discussed. Finally, recommendations for improving communication between health professionals and families will be presented.

As health professionals, we communicate all the time, but we must ask ourselves, ‘Are we communicating effectively or just talking?’ Communication should be personalised, tailoring the way we speak based on the receiver's responses (Østervang et al. 2021). Tailored communication means there is a shared goal of understanding, to effectively convey the concept to the other person, meeting their communication and cultural needs (Jang et al. 2022). When we reflect on our communication, we must consider whether we are truly sharing information for understanding or just providing facts. Simply talking involves delivering information without adjusting for the recipient's needs, while true communication means ensuring both parties understand the information being shared.

There are various communication styles, and everyone has their own approach to sharing information. It is important to consider both your own communication style and the preferred style of the person you are communicating with. Recognising body language, time spent in the communication interaction, and providing feedback or clarification influence how the other person processes and responds to the information. Engaging with the person by listening attentively, looking for acknowledgment, and simplifying the information are key steps to improving communication (Bishaw et al. 2024).

The first step in overcoming communication challenges is to recognise the audience you are communicating with. Reflecting on how the other person understands the information involves looking for signs of confusion or engagement. In a sample of interviewed nurses, many said they look for facial expressions to check if patients understand, but culturally, many people nod or show understanding even if they are confused (Hogan et al. 2024). Research shows that health professionals often overestimate patient understanding, relying on instinct rather than objective assessment (Hogan et al. 2023).

graphic file with name NOP2-12-e70187-g002.jpg

1. Health Literacy

Understanding literacy levels is essential for health professionals to gauge the person's ability to understand information. For example, 44% of adults have a literacy level equivalent to primary school, and 38% to senior level; this means health information needs to be broken down into simpler, more understandable sentences (World Health Organization 2023). These challenges are even greater for people from rural, remote, or culturally diverse backgrounds (Aljassim and Ostini 2020; Kozhimannil and Henning‐Smith 2021).

Improving communication between health professionals and families starts with understanding health literacy. Health literacy is defined as the ability to access health services, understand and use health information, and make informed decisions (World Health Organization 2023). Health literacy levels are often lower than expected, with over half of the population struggling to understand medication labels effectively (World Health Organization 2023). For example, many people misunderstand the words salt and sodium or take medication instructions like ‘with meals’ too literally, skipping doses if they do not eat. In a study of rural cancer patients, one participant said, ‘I had no idea what radiotherapy was; I was just shell‐shocked when I found out I was going to get radiation every day’ (Coyne et al. 2019). This highlights the need to clarify information and understand how families share the information.

1.

Our research has found that families who communicate openly at home are more likely to engage in discussions and decision‐making with health professionals (Coyne et al. 2017). In a study on health literacy, less than half of participants said they understood their medical diagnosis or treatment, often seeking help from family or the internet (Coyne et al. 2022). This aligns with global findings that four in 10 adults struggle to comprehend health content (World Health Organization 2023).

2. Health Literacy Screening

Research highlights the link between health literacy and social determinants of health; for example, socioeconomic status, social behaviours, environmental factors and language spoken at home all influence communication. It is crucial not to make assumptions based on social determinants. However, health professionals rarely use formal tools to assess patient literacy (Hogan et al. 2024). Health literacy assessments could help tailor information more effectively, rather than relying on estimations or providing generic information. Tools such as the single‐item screener ‘How often do you need someone to help you when reading instructions, pamphlets, or other written material?’—have been shown to effectively assess health literacy (Morris et al. 2006). Other tools like the Brief Health Literacy Screener (Chew et al. 2004) and the Newest Vital Sign (Ciccarelli et al. 2010) are also useful for assessing patient understanding.

3. Health Literacy and Avoidable Readmission

The link between understanding health information and being able to action this information is important to maintain health outcomes. When patients are discharged, they need to be able to manage their health at home; they need to fully understand their diagnosis and treatment. When patients and family struggle with self‐management and following discharge information, this leads to avoidable hospital readmissions. Avoidable readmissions occur when a patient's unplanned admission to the hospital is related to the initial admission (Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care 2024).

Improving communication between health professionals, patients and families will enhance both short‐ and long‐term health outcomes (Mileski et al. 2022). Effective communication tailored to the family's needs can improve their management of health conditions at home. Focusing on the family as the unit of care allows for a strengths‐based approach, considering how the family manage their own health and the associated information (Vasegaard et al. 2025). Identifying the family's communication style is key to ensuring the right family members receive and understand the information.

4. Recommendations

Take the time to sit down with the family, ask what they want to know, and provide information in a format that suits them. Offering information through oral, written and video formats accommodates different learning styles. Identifying teachable moments during the patient's time with health professionals can also enhance their understanding of the disease (Karvinen et al. 2015). Using videos with closed captions and simplified information can help non‐native speaking families revisit the material at home, improving their understanding (Coyne et al. 2022).

Encouraging family discussions helps to identify unmet needs. This creates opportunities for teach‐back communication, where patients and families repeat what they know to confirm understanding. Nurse‐led teach‐back education has been shown to reduce avoidable hospital readmissions by 30% in patients with cardiovascular disease (Oh et al. 2023). Follow‐up communication both during the hospital stay and after discharge is critical for improving understanding and health outcomes.

In conclusion, reflecting on our communication styles, educating future health professionals and integrating health literacy assessments into care can significantly enhance patient and family health information understanding. By tailoring information and focusing on what the family understands, rather than delivering standard education, we can improve health outcomes and enable improved management of care at home and reduce avoidable readmissions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

Our research team and the consumers who have shared their experiences of healthcare over many years.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability Statement

The authors have nothing report.

References

  1. Aljassim, N. , and Ostini R.. 2020. “Health Literacy in Rural and Urban Populations: A Systematic Review.” Patient Education and Counseling 103, no. 10: 2142–2154. 10.1016/j.pec.2020.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care . 2024. “Avoidable Hospital Readmissions.” https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our‐work/indicators/avoidable‐hospital‐readmissions.
  3. Bishaw, S. , Coyne E., Halkett G. K., and Bloomer M. J.. 2024. “Fostering Nurse–Patient Relationships in Palliative Care: An Integrative Review With Narrative Synthesis.” Palliative Medicine 38, no. 10: 1105–1120. 10.1177/02692163241277380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chew, L. D. , Bradley K. A., and Boyko E. J.. 2004. “Brief Questions to Identify Patients With Inadequate Health Literacy.” Family Medicine 36, no. 8: 588–594. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chua, D. , and Johnson T.. 2022. “Avoiding Hospital Readmissions: The Models and the Role of Primary Care.” https://ahha.asn.au/system/files/docs/publications/hospital_readmissions_reduction_primary_care_role_0.pdf.
  6. Ciccarelli, L. , Shah P., West K., Bremmeyr K., and Savoy‐Moore R.. 2010. “Health Literacy Instrument in Family Medicine: The ‘Newest Vital Sign’ Ease of Use and Correlates.” Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 23, no. 2: 195. 10.3122/jabfm.2010.02.070278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Coyne, E. , Corones‐Watkins K., Dhar A., et al. 2025. “Health Professional Students' Evaluation of Video Resources to Improve Their Communication Skills: A Co‐Design Study.” Nurse Education Today 147: 106–601. 10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Coyne, E. , Dieperink K. B., Østergaard B., and Creedy D. K.. 2017. “Strengths and Resources Used by Australian and Danish Adult Patients and Their Family Caregivers During Treatment for Cancer.” European Journal of Oncology Nursing 29: 53–59. 10.1016/j.ejon.2017.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coyne, E. , Frommolt V., and Salehi A.. 2019. “The Experience and Challenges of Rural Persons With Cancer and Their Families.” Collegian 26, no. 6: 609–619. 10.1016/j.colegn.2019.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coyne, E. , Winter N., Carlini J., Robertson J., and Dieperink K.. 2022. “Developing Video Resources to Reduce the Burden of Caring for Persons With Brain Cancer.” European Journal of Oncology Nursing 60: 102187. 10.1016/j.ejon.2022.102187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hogan, A. , Hughes L., and Coyne E.. 2023. “Understanding Nursing Assessment of Health Literacy in a Hospital Context: A Qualitative Study.” Journal of Clinical Nursing 32, no. 19‐20: 7495–7508. 10.1111/jocn.16809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hogan, A. , Hughes L., and Coyne E.. 2024. “Nurses' Assessment of Health Literacy Requirements for Adult Inpatients: An Integrative Review.” Health Promotion Journal of Australia: Official Journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals 35, no. 2: 504–517. 10.1002/hpja.780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jang, H. , Lee M., and Lee N.. 2022. “Communication Education Regarding Patient Safety for Registered Nurses in Acute Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review Protocol.” BMJ Open 12, no. 2: e053217. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Karvinen, K. , Bruner B., and Truant T.. 2015. “The Teachable Moment After Cancer Diagnosis: Perceptions From Oncology Nurses.” Oncology Nursing Forum 42, no. 6: 602–609. 10.1188/15.ONF.602-609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kozhimannil, K. B. , and Henning‐Smith C.. 2021. “Improving Health Among Rural Residents in the US.” JAMA 325, no. 11: 1033–1034. 10.1001/jama.2020.26372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mileski, M. , McClay R., Heinemann K., and Dray G.. 2022. “Efficacy of the Use of the Calgary Family Intervention Model in Bedside Nursing Education: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 15: 1323–1347. 10.2147/jmdh.S370053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Moore, C. , Gallagher P., and Dunne S.. 2024. “Health Literacy, eHealth Literacy and Their Association With Burden, Distress, and Self‐Efficacy Among Cancer Caregivers.” Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1283227. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1283227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Morris, N. S. , MacLean C. D., Chew L. D., and Littenberg B.. 2006. “The Single Item Literacy Screener: Evaluation of a Brief Instrument to Identify Limited Reading Ability.” BMC Family Practice 7, no. 1: 21. 10.1186/1471-2296-7-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Oh, S. , Choi H., Oh E. G., and Lee J. Y.. 2023. “Effectiveness of Discharge Education Using Teach‐Back Method on Readmission Among Heart Failure Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Patient Education and Counseling 107: 107559. 10.1016/j.pec.2022.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Østervang, C. , Lassen A. T., Jensen C. M., Coyne E., and Dieperink K. B.. 2021. “What Are the Needs and Preferences of Patients and Family Members Discharged From the Emergency Department Within 24 h? A Qualitative Study Towards a Family‐Centred Approach.” BMJ Open 11, no. 11: e050694. 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050694. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Vasegaard, H. , Clausen A. M., Kidholm M. L., Coyne E., and Dieperink K. B.. 2025. “Young Adult Siblings and Cancer: A Scoping Review Mapping the Evidence of Psychosocial Functions and Interventions.” Seminars in Oncology Nursing 151: 834. 10.1016/j.soncn.2025.151834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. World Health Organization . 2023. “Improving Health Literacy.” https://www.who.int/activities/improving‐health‐literacy.
  23. Xiao, L. , Zhang F., Cheng C., Yang N., Huang Q., and Yang Y.. 2024. “Effect of Health Literacy on Hospital Readmission Among Patients With Heart Failure: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Medicine 103, no. 38: e39644. 10.1097/MD.0000000000039644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The authors have nothing report.


Articles from Nursing Open are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES