Satisfaction with provider communication among Spanish-speaking Medicaid enrollees

Kaiser Permanente, Care Management Institute, Portland, Oregon 97232, USA.
Ambulatory Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 1.6). 11/2004; 4(6):500-4. DOI: 10.1367/A04-019R1.1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine if differences between English- and Spanish-speaking parents in ratings of their children's health care can be explained by need for interpretive services.
Using the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey-Child-Survey (CAHPS), reports about provider communication were compared among 3 groups of parents enrolled in a Medicaid managed care health plan: 1) English speakers, 2) Spanish speakers with no self-reported need for interpretive services, and 3) Spanish speakers with self-reported need for interpretive services. Parents were asked to report how well their providers 1) listened carefully to what was being said, 2) explained things in a way that could be understood, 3) respected their comments and concerns, and 4) spent enough time during medical encounters. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the ratings of each of the 3 groups while controlling for child's gender, parent's gender, parent's educational attainment, child's health status, and survey year.
Spanish-speaking parents in need of interpretive services were less likely to report that providers spent enough time with their children (odds ratio = 0.34, 95% confidence interval = 0.17-0.68) compared to English-speaking parents. There was no statistically significant difference found between Spanish-speaking parents with no need of interpretive services and English-speaking parents.
Among Spanish- versus English-speaking parents, differences in ratings of whether providers spent enough time with children during medical encounters appear to be explained, in part, by need for interpretive services. No other differences in ratings of provider communication were found.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe the quality of physician-family communication during interpreted and noninterpreted family meetings in the PICU. Prospective, exploratory, descriptive observational study of noninterpreted English family meetings and interpreted Spanish family meetings in the pediatric intensive care setting. A single, university-based, tertiary children's hospital. Participants in PICU family meetings, including medical staff, family members, ancillary staff, and interpreters. Thirty family meetings (21 English and nine Spanish) were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using the qualitative method of directed content analysis. Quality of communication was analyzed in three ways: 1) presence of elements of shared decision-making, 2) balance between physician and family speech, and 3) complexity of physician speech. Of the 11 elements of shared decision-making, only four occurred in more than half of English meetings, and only three occurred in more than half of Spanish meetings. Physicians spoke for a mean of 20.7 minutes, while families spoke for 9.3 minutes during English meetings. During Spanish meetings, physicians spoke for a mean of 14.9 minutes versus just 3.7 minutes of family speech. Physician speech complexity received a mean grade level score of 8.2 in English meetings compared to 7.2 in Spanish meetings. The quality of physician-family communication during PICU family meetings is poor overall. Interpreted meetings had poorer communication quality as evidenced by fewer elements of shared decision-making and greater imbalance between physician and family speech. However, physician speech may be less complex during interpreted meetings. Our data suggest that physicians can improve communication in both interpreted and noninterpreted family meetings by increasing the use of elements of shared decision-making, improving the balance between physician and family speech, and decreasing the complexity of physician speech.
    Critical care medicine 01/2014; 42(6). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000177 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: Emergency department (ED) use for nonemergent conditions is associated with discontinuity of care at a greater cost. The objective of this study was to determine whether the quality of patient-provider communication and access to one's usual source of care (USC) were associated with greater nonemergent ED use. A hurdle model was employed using data from the 2007 to 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. First, a multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with the likelihood of a nonemergent ED visit. Given that one occurrence exists, a second negative binomial model was used to establish whether patient-provider communication or access are related to the frequency of nonemergent ED use. One element of communication, patient-provider language concordance, is associated with fewer nonemergent ED visits (P < .05). Several aspects of access are related to reduced ED use for nonemergent purposes. Patients whose USC is available after hours and those who travel less than an hour to get to their USC use the ED less for nonemergent care (P ≤ .05). Enhancing primary care by expanding interpreter services and access to care after hours may reduce the demand for nonemergent ED services.
    The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 11/2013; 26(6):680-91. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2013.06.120327 · 1.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study evaluates the psychometric properties of three newly developed items assessing the quality of interpretation from the patient’s perspective among Spanish-speaking limited English proficient Latino patients. Patients and methods: The authors examined the psychometric properties of a patient-reported measure of quality of interpretation using a cross-sectional survey study of 1,590 adult Spanish-speaking limited English proficient Latinos in the United States. Quality of interpretation, doctor communication, and satisfaction with care were assessed using a three survey-item, an independent multiple-item measure, and a single-item measure, respectively. Results: Sixty-nine percent (1,104) of patients surveyed used interpreters. Cronbach’s alpha for the three items assessing interpreter quality was 0.31, while dropping item three resulted in an alpha of 0.56. Items one and two were moderately correlated with doctor communication (r=0.39) and satisfaction with care scores (r=0.21) supporting construct validity. Conclusion: Two out of three survey items can be scaled to measure quality of interpretation from the patient’s perspective. Quality of interpretation reported by patients is moderately associated with doctor communication and satisfaction with care. Keywords: interpreters, Latinos, doctor–patient communication, satisfaction with care
    Patient Related Outcome Measures 09/2014; volume 2014(5):87-92. DOI:10.2147/PROM.S68699

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 17, 2014