Exploring the Factors that Influence Ethical Spanish Use among Medical Students and Solutions for Improvement.

IssueThere is a need for greater access to Spanish language services in United States healthcare. One approach to increasing language concordant care is the use of second language skills by healthcare staff. The desire to use second language skills may have unintended consequences when individuals step beyond their language abilities and can cause more harm than do good for limited-English proficiency patients. Medical students are in a unique position that places them at increased risk for inappropriately using second language skills. Evidence: The use of qualified healthcare interpreters has been shown to mitigate some of the disparities seen with limited-English proficiency patients including poorer healthcare outcomes, less access to care, and lower patient satisfaction. In spite of this knowledge, studies have demonstrated the phenomenon of residents and physicians "getting by" without the use of an interpreter, even when they recognized that their language competency was insufficient to provide high quality care. Regardless of language ability, medical students are asked to engage in conversations with Spanish speaking patients that are beyond their level of language competency. Students vary in their perceived language ability and level of comfort engaging in different clinical scenarios with limited-English proficiency patients. Implications: Students are in a unique position of vulnerability to pressures to use second language skills in situations that step beyond their abilities. We explore how hierarchy intensifies previously established factors, including a lack of adequate training or evaluation and other structural barriers, in contributing to medical students' inappropriate use of Spanish with limited-English proficiency patients. We propose an approach that includes student education, standardization of clinic rules regarding interpretation, and comprehensive faculty development to address this important patient care issue.

Effect of high up front charges on access to surgery for poor patients at a public hospital in New Mexico.

BACKGROUND: A public hospital in New Mexico required collection of 50% of estimated costs prior to elective surgeries for self-pay patients. This study assesses the impact of this policy on access to elective surgical procedures. METHODS: Chi-square tests determined if there was a statistically significant difference between the number of self-pay and insured patient cancellations for financial reasons. A multivariate binomial regression model was used to calculate risk ratios and confidence limits for effects of race/ethnicity, and insurance status, controlling for gender, on these cancellations. RESULTS: Of the 667 cancellations, there were 99 self-pay and 568 insured patients. Cancellations for financial reasons occurred in 55.6% of self-pay and 9.3% of insured patients (p < 0.0001). Inability to pay 50% up front accounted for 76.4% of self-pay patient cancellations for financial reasons. Self-pay, non-Hispanic whites and minority race/ethnicities were 8.76 and 8.61 times more likely to cancel for financial reasons, respectively, than insured non-Hispanic whites. CONCLUSION: Self-pay patients, regardless of race/ethnicity, have elective surgical procedures cancelled for financial reasons significantly more often than insured patients. The hospital's 50% up-front payment policy represents a significant financial barrier to accessing elective surgical procedures for self-pay patients.