Make the next step easy to understand.

Clarity is a shared responsibility

Healthcare messages often combine unfamiliar words with a task that needs to be completed. A person may understand the topic and still be unsure whether to call, wait for a letter, book an appointment or bring a document.

AHRQ's health literacy toolkit treats clearer information and easier navigation as organisational responsibilities. Its approach is to make communication usable across different levels of health literacy rather than guessing who will struggle.

This article offers an original editorial review exercise for routine information. Clinical instructions, accessibility requirements and translated material need the appropriate professional review.

Choose one message and one task

Start with a fictional appointment reminder or a non-clinical template. Identify the task the reader is supposed to complete. If the message has several tasks, write them down separately.

Ask what must be understood first, which detail is essential to the action and which information belongs elsewhere. A message can be shorter and still be unclear if it removes the explanation a person needs.

Keep the purpose concrete. 'Improve communication' is a large ambition. 'Make it clear who arranges this appointment' is a question a group can discuss.

Compare the instruction, not the word count

The second example identifies a role and an action. It is not a template for every service: a real message would need accurate contact details and the locally agreed information about timing and alternatives.

Look for verbs that name the task. Check whether dates, places and contact routes are easy to find. Remove jargon only when the replacement remains accurate.

Check how the message is understood

Asking whether a message 'looks clear' is different from asking someone what they would do after reading it. AHRQ discusses teach-back as a way for professionals to check how an explanation has been understood, with the emphasis on the explanation rather than testing the patient.

For a non-clinical editorial exercise, ask a colleague unfamiliar with the process to describe the next action in their own words. Notice where they have to guess. This is a starting point for revision, not validation that a patient-facing document is safe or accessible.

Translation is a separate question. Accurate words do not automatically mean that the contact route, appointment system or assumed background knowledge makes sense to the reader.

Treat the route as part of the message

A well-written message is useful only if people can receive and use it. A portal, phone call, printed letter and conversation have different constraints. Consider what happens when someone cannot use the chosen channel.

Ask the people responsible for communication how alternative formats and language support are arranged. Avoid promises that the organisation cannot keep. When a process changes, review the related information together rather than updating one page while leaving the letter unchanged.

Our continuity explainer looks at how information fits between appointments. The referral guide follows the handovers that a message may describe.