Article

Diversity in healthcare: time to get REAL!

Advocate Lutheran General Children's Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois, USA.
Frontiers of health services management 01/2010; 26(3):3-17.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cross-cultural healthcare involves three key issues: racial and ethnic disparities in the quality of healthcare provided to minority patients; cross-cultural value differences between immigrant patients and Western medical providers; and providing language access and assistance to limited English proficient (LEP) and disabled persons. Addressing these key issues represents a compelling diversity agenda for a new generation of healthcare executives. This article describes each of these challenges and the cutting-edge strategies that leading healthcare organizations are using to address them.

9 Followers
 · 
150 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This 2007 Harvard School of Public Health/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation survey of 4,334 randomly selected U.S. adults compared perceptions of the quality of physician care among fourteen racial and ethnic groups with those of whites. On each measure examined, at least five and as many as eleven subgroups perceived their care to be significantly worse than care for whites. In many instances, subgroups were at least fifteen percentage points more negative than whites. This was true for Central/South Americans, Chinese Americans, and Korean Americans on five of seven measures. Many of the differences remained after socioeconomic characteristics and language skills were controlled for.
    Health Affairs 03/2008; 27(2):507-17. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.27.2.507 · 4.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine how often interpreters were used for Spanish- speaking patients, patients' perceived need for an interpreter, and the impact of interpreter use on patients' subjective and objective knowledge of their diagnosis and treatment. Cross-sectional survey. Public hospital emergency department. A total of 467 native Spanish-speaking and 63 English-speaking Latino patients presenting with nonurgent medical problems. Patients' report of whether an interpreter was used, whether one was needed, self-perceived understanding of diagnosis and treatment, and objective knowledge of discharge instructions. An interpreter was used for 26% of Spanish-speaking patients. For 52%, and interpreter was not used but was not thought to be necessary by the patient. A total of 22% said an interpreter was not used but should have been used. When both the patient's English and the examiner's Spanish were poor, an interpreter was not called 34% of the time, and 87% of the patients who did not have an interpreter thought one should have been used. Nurses and physicians interpreted most frequently (49%), and professional interpreters were used for only 12% of patients. Patients who said an interpreter was not necessary rated their understanding of their disease as good to excellent 67% of the time, compared with 57% of those who used an interpreter and 38% of those who thought an interpreter should have been used (P<.001). For understanding of treatment, the figures were 86%, 82%, and 58%, respectively (P<.001). However, when objective measures of understanding diagnosis and treatment were used, the differences between these groups were smaller and generally not statistically significant. There were no differences between English-speaking Latinos and native Spanish-speakers who said they did not need an interpreter. Interpreters are often not used despite a perceived need by patients, and the interpreters who are used usually lack formal training in this skill. Language concordance and interpreter use greatly affected patients' perceived understanding of their disease, but a high proportion of patients in all groups had poor knowledge of their diagnosis and recommended treatment.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 03/1996; 275(10):783-8. DOI:10.1001/jama.275.10.783 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although an inability to speak English is recognized as an obstacle to health care in the United States, it is unclear how clinicians alter their diagnostic approach when confronted with a language barrier (LB). To determine if a LB between families and their emergency department (ED) physician was associated with a difference in diagnostic testing and length of stay in the ED. Prospective cohort study. This study prospectively assessed clinical status and care provided to patients who presented to a pediatric ED from September 1997 through December 1997. Patients included were 2 months to 10 years of age, not chronically ill, and had a presenting temperature >/=38.5 degrees C or complained of vomiting, diarrhea, or decreased oral intake. Examining physicians determined study eligibility and recorded the Yale Observation Score if the patient was <3 years old, and whether there was a LB between the physician and the family. Standard hospital charges were applied for each visit to any of the 22 commonly ordered tests. Comparisons of total charges were made among groups using Mann-Whitney U tests. Analysis of covariance was used to evaluate predictors of total charges and length of ED stay. Data were obtained about 2467 patients. A total of 286 families (12%) did not speak English, resulting in a LB for the physician in 209 cases (8.5%). LB patients were much more likely to be Hispanic (88% vs 49%), and less likely to be commercially insured (19% vs 30%). These patients were slightly younger (mean 31 months vs 36 months), but had similar acuity, triage vital signs, and Yale Observation Score (when applicable). In cases in which a LB existed, mean test charges were significantly higher: $145 versus $104, and ED stays were significantly longer: 165 minutes versus 137 minutes. In an analysis of covariance model including race/ethnicity, insurance status, physician training level, attending physician, urgent care setting, triage category, age, and vital signs, the presence of a LB accounted for a $38 increase in charges for testing and a 20 minute longer ED stay. Despite controlling for multiple factors, the presence of a physician-family LB was associated with a higher rate of resource utilization for diagnostic studies and increased ED visit times. Additional study is recommended to explore the reasons for these differences and ways to provide care more efficiently to non-English-speaking patients.
    Pediatrics 07/1999; 103(6 Pt 1):1253-6. DOI:10.1542/peds.103.6.1253 · 5.30 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
8 Downloads
Available from