Article

Language Barriers among Patients in Boston Emergency Departments: Use of Medical Interpreters After Passage of Interpreter Legislation

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health (Impact Factor: 1.16). 09/2008; 11(6):527-30. DOI: 10.1007/s10903-008-9188-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Since 2001, Massachusetts state law dictates that emergency department (ED) patients with limited English proficiency have the right to a professional interpreter.
One year later, for two 24-h periods, we interviewed adult patients presenting to four Boston EDs. We assessed language barriers and compared this need with the observed use and type of interpreter during the ED visit.
We interviewed 530 patients (70% of eligible) and estimated that an interpreter was needed for 60 (11%; 95% confidence interval, 7-12%) patients. The primary interpreter for these clinical encounters was a physician (30%), friend or family member age >or=18 years (22%), hospital interpreter services (15%), younger family member (11%), or other hospital staff (17%).
We found that 11% of ED patients had significant language barriers, but use of professional medical interpreters remained low. One year after passage of legislation mandating access, use of professional medical interpreters remained inadequate.

Full-text

Available from: Carlos A Camargo, Jun 12, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
79 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To compare emergency department care experiences of Spanish-speaking, limited-English-proficient (SSLEP) and English-proficient (EP) parents and to assess how SSLEP care experiences vary by parent-perceived interpretation accuracy. Methods The National Research Corporation Picker Institute's Family Experience Survey (FES) was administered from November 26, 2010, to July 17, 2011, to 478 EP and 152 SSLEP parents. Problem scores for 3 FES dimensions were calculated: information/education, partnership with clinicians, and access/coordination of care. Adjusted associations between language proficiency (SSLEP vs EP) and dimension problem scores were examined by multivariate Poisson regression. Unadjusted Poisson regression analysis was used to examine the association between perceived interpretation accuracy and FES problem scores for SSLEP parents who received interpretation. Results SSLEP parents had a higher risk of reporting problems with access/coordination of care compared to EP parents (risk ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.2, 2.1). There were no differences in reported care experiences related to information/education or partnership with clinicians. Among SSLEP parents who received professional interpretation, those reporting poor accuracy had a higher risk of also reporting problems with information/education (risk ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2, 3.6). Conclusions In a pediatric emergency department with around-the-clock access to professional interpretation, SSLEP parents report poorer experiences than EP parents with access/coordination of care, including perceived wait times. Their experiences with provision of information/education and partnership with clinicians approximate those of EP parents. However, SSLEP parents who perceive poor interpretation accuracy report more problems understanding information provided about their child's illness and care.
    Academic Pediatrics 09/2014; 15(2). DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2014.06.019 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of available interpreter services by hospital clinical staff is often suboptimal, despite evidence that trained interpreters contribute to quality of care and patient safety. Examination of intra-hospital variations in attitudes and practices regarding interpreter use can contribute to identifying factors that facilitate good practice. The purpose of this study was to describe attitudes, practices and preferences regarding communication with limited French proficiency (LFP) patients, examine how these vary across professions and departments within the hospital, and identify factors associated with good practices. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to random samples of 700 doctors, 700 nurses and 93 social workers at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. Seventy percent of respondents encounter LFP patients at least once a month, but this varied by department. 66% of respondents said they preferred working with ad hoc interpreters (patient's family and bilingual staff), mainly because these were easier to access. During the 6 months preceding the study, ad hoc interpreters were used at least once by 71% of respondents, and professional interpreters were used at least once by 51%. Overall, only nine percent of respondents had received any training in how and why to work with a trained interpreter. Only 23.2% of respondents said the clinical service in which they currently worked encouraged them to use professional interpreters. Respondents working in services where use of professional interpreters was encouraged were more likely to be of the opinion that the hospital should systematically provide a professional interpreter to LFP patients (40.3%) as compared with those working in a department that discouraged use of professional interpreters (15.5%) and they used professional interpreters more often during the previous 6 months. Attitudes and practices regarding communication with LFP patients vary across professions and hospital departments. In order to foster an institution-wide culture conducive to ensuring adequate communication with LFP patients will require both the development of a hospital-wide policy and service-level activities aimed at reinforcing this policy and putting it into practice.
    BMC Health Services Research 10/2009; 9:187. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-9-187 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although concern exists over the quality of emergency mental health services, little is known about the mental health care of adults who are admitted to emergency departments for deliberately harming themselves and then discharged to the community. To describe the predictors of emergency department discharge, the emergency mental health assessments, and the follow-up outpatient mental health care of adult Medicaid beneficiaries treated for deliberate self-harm. A retrospective longitudinal cohort analysis. National Medicaid claims data supplemented with county-level sociodemographic variables and Medicaid state policy survey data. Adults aged 21 to 64 years who were treated in emergency departments for 7355 episodes of deliberate self-harm, focusing on those who were discharged to the community (4595 episodes). Rates and adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) of discharge to the community, mental health assessments in the emergency department, and outpatient mental health visits during the 30 days following the emergency department visit. Most patients (62.5%) were discharged to the community. Emergency department discharge was directly related to younger patient age (21-31 years vs 45-64 years) (ARR, 1.18 [99% confidence interval {CI}, 1.10-1.25]) and self-harm by cutting (ARR, 1.18 [99% CI, 1.12-1.24]) and inversely related to poisoning (ARR, 0.84 [99% CI, 0.80-0.89]) and recent psychiatric hospitalization (ARR, 0.74 [99% CI, 0.67-0.81]). Approximately one-half of discharged patients (47.5%) received a mental health assessment in the emergency department, and a similar percentage of discharged patients (52.4%) received a follow-up outpatient mental health visit within 30 days. Follow-up mental health care was directly related to recent outpatient mental health care (ARR, 2.30 [99% CI, 2.11-2.50]) and treatment in a state with Medicaid coverage of mental health clinic services (ARR, 1.13 [99% CI, 1.05-1.22]) and inversely related to African American (ARR, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.75-0.96]) and Hispanic (ARR, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.75-0.99]) race/ethnicity. Most adult Medicaid beneficiaries who present for emergency care for deliberate self-harm are discharged to the community, and many do not receive emergency mental health assessments or follow-up outpatient mental health care.
    Archives of general psychiatry 09/2011; 69(1):80-8. DOI:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.108 · 13.75 Impact Factor