Dataset Information

Impact of patient language proficiency and interpreter service use on the quality of psychiatric care: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: This literature review examined the effects of patients' limited English proficiency and use of professional and ad hoc interpreters on the quality of psychiatric care.PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were systematically searched for English-language publications from inception of each database to April 2009. Reference lists were reviewed, and expert sources were consulted. Among the 321 articles identified, 26 met inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed articles reporting primary data on clinical care for psychiatric disorders among patients with limited proficiency in English or in the provider's language.Evaluation in a patient's nonprimary language can lead to incomplete or distorted mental status assessment. Although both untrained and trained interpreters may make errors, untrained interpreters' errors may have greater clinical impact, compromising diagnostic accuracy and clinicians' detection of disordered thought or delusional content. Use of professional interpreters may improve disclosure in patient-provider communications, referral to specialty care, and patient satisfaction.Little systematic research has addressed the impact of language proficiency or interpreter use on the quality of psychiatric care in contemporary U.S. settings. Findings are insufficient to inform evidence-based guidelines for improving quality of care among patients with limited English proficiency. Clinicians should be aware of the ways in which quality of care can be compromised when they evaluate patients in a nonprimary language or use an interpreter. Given U.S. demographic trends, future research should help guide practice and policy by addressing deficits in the evidence base.

SUBMITTER: Bauer AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2946248 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of patient language proficiency and interpreter service use on the quality of psychiatric care: a systematic review.

Bauer Amy M AM Alegría Margarita M

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20100801 8

<h4>Objective</h4>This literature review examined the effects of patients' limited English proficiency and use of professional and ad hoc interpreters on the quality of psychiatric care.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were systematically searched for English-language publications from inception of each database to April 2009. Reference lists were reviewed, and expert sources were consulted. Among the 321 articles identified, ...[more]

PMID: 20675834

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organisation estimates disabling hearing loss to be around 5.3%, while a study of hearing impairment and auditory pathology in Limpopo, South Africa found a prevalence of nearly 9%. Although Sign Language Interpreters (SLIs) improve the communication challenges in health care, they are unaffordable for many signing Deaf people and people with disabling hearing loss. On the other hand, there are no legal provisions in place to ensure the provision of SLIs in the health sector in most countries including South Africa. To advocate for funding of such initiatives, reliable cost estimates are essential and such data is scarce. To bridge this gap, this study estimated the costs of providing such a service within a South African District health service based on estimates obtained from a pilot-project that initiated the first South African Sign Language Interpreter (SASLI) service in health-care.MethodsThe ingredients method was used to calculate the unit cost per SASLI-assisted visit from a provider perspective. The unit costs per SASLI-assisted visit were then used in estimating the costs of scaling up this service to the District Health Services. The average annual SASLI utilisation rate per person was calculated on Stata v.12 using the projects' registry from 2008-2013. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the effect of changing the discount rate and personnel costs.ResultsAverage Sign Language Interpreter services' utilisation rates increased from 1.66 to 3.58 per person per year, with a median of 2 visits, from 2008-2013. The cost per visit was US$189.38 in 2013 whilst the estimated costs of scaling up this service ranged from US$14.2million to US$76.5million in the Cape Metropole District. These cost estimates represented 2.3%-12.2% of the budget for the Western Cape District Health Services for 2013.ConclusionsIn the presence of Sign Language Interpreters, Deaf Sign language users utilise health care service to a similar extent as the hearing population. However, this service requires significant capital investment by government to enable access to healthcare for the Deaf.

Project description:BackgroundA number of parents in neonatal care are foreign-born and do not speak the local language, which makes communication between healthcare professionals and parents more difficult. Interpreters can be used when language barriers exist - parent interactions, medical communication and communication about the care of the child. The aim in this study was to examine healthcare professionals' use of interpreters and awareness of local guidelines for interpreted communication in neonatal care.MethodA survey was distributed to all 2109 employees at all 38 neonatal units in Sweden, thus to all physicians, registered nurses and nurse assistants in active service. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and dichotomized so the professionals were compared in groups of two using the Mantel-Haenszel Chi Square test and Fisher's Non Parametric Permutation test.ResultsThe survey was answered by 41% (n = 858) representing all neonatal units. The study showed a difference between the professional groups in awareness of guidelines, availability of interpreters, and individual resources to communicate through an interpreter. Nurse assistants significantly lesser than registered nurses (p < .0001) were aware of guidelines concerning the use of interpreters. In emergency communications nurse assistants used authorized interpreters to a significantly lesser extent than physicians (p < .0001) and registered nurses (p < .0001). Physicians used authorized interpreters to a significantly higher extent than registered nurses (p 0.006) and non-authorized interpreters to a significantly lesser extent than registered nurses (p 0.013). In planned communications, nurse assistants used authorized interpreters to a significantly lesser extent than physicians (p < .0001) and registered nurses (p < .0001). Nurse assistants rated their ability to communicate with parents through an interpreter to a significantly lesser extent than physicians (p 0.0058) and registered nurses (p 0.0026). No other significant differences were found.ConclusionThe results of the study show insufficient awareness of guidelines in all neonatal units in Sweden. Clinical implications might be to provide healthcare professionals with guidelines and training clinical skills in using interpreters and increasing the availability of interpreters by having interpreters employed by the hospital.

Project description:BackgroundLanguage concordance can increase access to care for patients with language barriers and improve patient health outcomes. However, systematically assessing and tracking physician non-English language skills remains uncommon in most health systems. This is a missed opportunity for health systems to maximize language-concordant care.ObjectiveTo determine barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language proficiency assessment among primary care physicians.DesignQualitative, semi-structured interviews.ParticipantsEleven fully and partially bilingual primary care physicians from a large academic health system with a language certification program (using a clinician oral proficiency interview).ApproachInterviews aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language assessment. Two researchers independently and iteratively coded transcripts using a thematic analysis approach with constant comparison to identify themes.Key resultsMost participants were women (N= 9; 82%). Participants reported proficiency in Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish. All fully bilingual participants (n=5) had passed the language assessment; of the partially bilingual participants (n=6), four did not test, one passed with marginal proficiency, and one did not pass. Three themes emerged as barriers to assessment participation: (1) beliefs about the negative consequences (emotional and material) of not passing the test, (2) time constraints and competing demands, and (3) challenging test format and structure. Four themes emerged as facilitators to increase assessment adoption: (1) messaging consistent with professional ethos, (2) organizational culture that incentivizes certification, (3) personal empowerment about language proficiency, and (4) individuals championing certification.ConclusionsTo increase language assessment participation and thus ensure quality language-concordant care, health systems must address the identified barriers physicians experience and leverage potential facilitators. Findings can inform health system interventions to standardize the requirements and process, increase transparency, provide resources for preparation and remediation, utilize messaging focused on patient care quality and safety, and incentivize participation.

Project description:BackgroundApproximately 25 million people in the USA are limited English proficient (LEP). When LEP patients receive care from physicians who are truly language concordant, some evidence show that language disparities are reduced, but others demonstrate worse outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the impact of language-concordant care for LEP patients with that of other interventions, including professional and ad hoc interpreters.MethodsData was collected through a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE in October 2017. The literature search strategy had three main components, which were immigrant/minority status, language barrier/proficiency, and healthcare provider/patient relationship. The quality of the articles was appraised using the Downs and Black checklist.ResultsThe 33 studies were grouped by the outcome measure studied, including quality of care (subdivided into primary care, diabetes, pain management, cancer, and inpatient), satisfaction with care/communication, medical understanding, and mental health. Of the 33, 4 (6.9%) were randomized controlled trials and the remaining 29 (87.9%) were cross-sectional studies. Seventy-six percent (25/33) of the studies demonstrated that at least one of the outcomes assessed was better for patients receiving language-concordant care, while 15% (5/33) of studies demonstrated no difference in outcomes, and 9% (3/33) studies demonstrated worse outcomes in patients receiving language-concordant care.DiscussionThe findings of this review indicate that, in the majority of situations, language-concordant care improves outcomes. Although most studies included were of good quality, none provided a standardized assessment of provider language skills. To systematically evaluate the impact of truly language-concordant care on outcomes and draw meaningful conclusions, future studies must include an assessment of clinician language proficiency. Language-concordant care offers an important way for physicians to meet the unique needs of their LEP patients.

Project description:ImportanceArtificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in simulating human-like dialogue. Their efficacy in accurate patient-clinician communication within radiation oncology has yet to be explored.ObjectiveTo determine an LLM's quality of responses to radiation oncology patient care questions using both domain-specific expertise and domain-agnostic metrics.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study retrieved questions and answers from websites (accessed February 1 to March 20, 2023) affiliated with the National Cancer Institute and the Radiological Society of North America. These questions were used as queries for an AI LLM, ChatGPT version 3.5 (accessed February 20 to April 20, 2023), to prompt LLM-generated responses. Three radiation oncologists and 3 radiation physicists ranked the LLM-generated responses for relative factual correctness, relative completeness, and relative conciseness compared with online expert answers. Statistical analysis was performed from July to October 2023.Main outcomes and measuresThe LLM's responses were ranked by experts using domain-specific metrics such as relative correctness, conciseness, completeness, and potential harm compared with online expert answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Domain-agnostic metrics encompassing cosine similarity scores, readability scores, word count, lexicon, and syllable counts were computed as independent quality checks for LLM-generated responses.ResultsOf the 115 radiation oncology questions retrieved from 4 professional society websites, the LLM performed the same or better in 108 responses (94%) for relative correctness, 89 responses (77%) for completeness, and 105 responses (91%) for conciseness compared with expert answers. Only 2 LLM responses were ranked as having potential harm. The mean (SD) readability consensus score for expert answers was 10.63 (3.17) vs 13.64 (2.22) for LLM answers (P < .001), indicating 10th grade and college reading levels, respectively. The mean (SD) number of syllables was 327.35 (277.15) for expert vs 376.21 (107.89) for LLM answers (P = .07), the mean (SD) word count was 226.33 (191.92) for expert vs 246.26 (69.36) for LLM answers (P = .27), and the mean (SD) lexicon score was 200.15 (171.28) for expert vs 219.10 (61.59) for LLM answers (P = .24).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, the LLM generated accurate, comprehensive, and concise responses with minimal risk of harm, using language similar to human experts but at a higher reading level. These findings suggest the LLM's potential, with some retraining, as a valuable resource for patient queries in radiation oncology and other medical fields.

Dataset Information

Impact of patient language proficiency and interpreter service use on the quality of psychiatric care: a systematic review.

Publications

Impact of patient language proficiency and interpreter service use on the quality of psychiatric care: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets