{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021150592216582064, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010998307952622674, 'mean_word_length': 5.035714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Written information for transurethral resection of the prostate--a national audit.

OBJECTIVES
To assess the use and content of written information relating to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).


MATERIALS AND METHODS
All 328 full members of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) were requested to submit any information sheets or specialized consent forms given to patients about to undergo TURP. They were asked to record when the information was given and whether this was recorded in the notes. The sheets were analysed with reference to a nominally comprehensive list of topics suitable for inclusion in such sheets.


RESULTS
One-hundred and eleven replies were received (34%) which represents 44% of urological departments. Of those replying, only 56 used information sheets for TURP. The overall comprehensiveness of the information was surprisingly poor, with 12% omitting to mention retrograde ejaculation and 19% failing to discuss the need for a catheter.


CONCLUSION
The written information given to patients about to undergo TURP appears inadequate. There is a need for a nationally accepted information sheet that can be edited locally.