Language Access Systems Improvement initiative: impact on professional interpreter utilisation, a natural experiment.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the Language Access Systems Improvement (LASI) initiative's impact on professional interpreter utilisation in primary care and to explore patient and clinician perspectives on professional interpreter use. DESIGN: Multi methods: Quantitative natural experiment pre-LASI and post-LASI, qualitative semistructured interviews with clinicians and focus groups with patients post-LASI. SETTING: Large, academic primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish, English-speaking adult patients and their clinicians. INTERVENTION: LASI initiative: Implementation of a clinician language proficiency test and simultaneous provision of on-demand access to professional interpreters via video medical interpretation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantitative: Proportion of language discordant primary care visits which were professionally interpreted. Qualitative: Salient themes related to professional interpreter use and non-use. RESULTS: The researchers categorised language concordance for 1475 visits with 152 unique clinicians; 698 were not fully language concordant (202 pre-LASI and 496 post-LASI). Professional interpreter utilisation increased (pre-LASI 57% vs post-LASI 66%; p=0.01); the visits with the lowest percentage of profssional interpreter use post-LASI were those in which clinicians and patients had partial language concordance. In inverse probability weighted analysis, restricting to 499 visits with strict estimated propensity score overlap (100% common support), post-LASI visits had higher odds of using a professional interpreter compared with pre-LASI visits (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.04 to 5.48). Qualitative results demonstrate video interpretation was convenient and well liked by both clinicians and patients. Some partially bilingual clinicians reported frustration with patient refusal of interpreter services; others reported using the video interpreters as a backup during visits. Views of the care-partner role differed for clinicians and patients. Clinicians reported sometimes having family interpret out of convenience or habit, whereas patients reported wanting family members present for support and advocacy, not interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: LASI increased utilisation of professional interpreters; however, this was least prominent for partially language concordant visits. Health systems wishing to implement LASI or similar interventions will need to support clinicians and patients with partial bilingual skills in their efforts to use professional interpreters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: HSRP20153367.

Language-Concordant Care: a Qualitative Study Examining Implementation of Physician Non-English Language Proficiency Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Language 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. OBJECTIVE: To determine barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language proficiency assessment among primary care physicians. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven fully and partially bilingual primary care physicians from a large academic health system with a language certification program (using a clinician oral proficiency interview). APPROACH: Interviews 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 RESULTS: Most 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. CONCLUSIONS: To 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.

"Long Overdue": Nurse and Resident Physician Perspectives on Implementation of Dual-Handset Interpreter Phones in the Inpatient Setting.

Background: Patients with language barriers suffer significant health disparities, including adverse events and poor health outcomes. While remote language services can help improve language access, these modalities remain persistently underused. The objective of this study was to understand clinician experiences and challenges using dual-handset interpreter telephones and to inform recommendations for future language access interventions. Methods: We conducted four focus groups with nurses (N=14) and resident physicians (N=20) to understand attitudes toward dual-handset interpreter telephones in the hospital, including general impressions, effects on communication, situations in which they did and did not use them, and impact on clinical care. Three researchers independently coded all transcripts using a constant comparative approach, meeting repeatedly to discuss coding and to reconcile differences to reach consensus. Results: We identified five salient themes, including increased language access (improved convenience, flexibility, and versatility of phones over in-person or ad hoc interpreters); effects on interpersonal processes of care (improved ability to communicate directly with patients); effects on clinical processes of care (improvements in critical patient care functions, including pain and medication management); impact on time (needing extra time for interpreted encounters and perceived delays impacting future use); and patients for whom, and circumstances in which, the dual-handset interpreter telephone is inadequate (e.g., complex discussions, hands-on instruction, or multiple speakers are present). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that clinicians value dual-handset interpretation in bridging communication barriers and highlight recommendations to guide future implementation interventions to increase the uptake of remote language services in hospital settings.

Reducing Health Care Disparities for Minority Women in the Era of the Affordable Care Act: Opportunities within Primary Care.

Despite improvements in overall health of the American population, disparities persist, particularly for minority women. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) offers the potential to reduce disparities through expanded insurance coverage, greater access to high-quality care, and bolstered prevention efforts in the context of new models of care such as the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). We use case studies representing three clinical conditions (breast cancer, HIV, and coronary heart disease) to present strategies for how a PCMH could reduce disparities for minority women. The case studies highlight the opportunity that further implementation of the ACA provides to improve screening, risk assessment, and prevention for a range of conditions that impact the health of minority women, as well as areas ripe for future investigation.

Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if professional medical interpreters have a positive impact on clinical care for limited English proficiency (LEP) patients. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search, limited to the English language, in PubMed and PsycINFO for publications between 1966 and September 2005, and a search of the Cochrane Library. STUDY DESIGN: Any peer-reviewed article which compared at least two language groups, and contained data about professional medical interpreters and addressed communication (errors and comprehension), utilization, clinical outcomes, or satisfaction were included. Of 3,698 references, 28 were found by multiple reviewers to meet inclusion criteria and, of these, 21 assessed professional interpreters separately from ad hoc interpreters. Data were abstracted from each article by two reviewers. Data were collected on the study design, size, comparison groups, analytic technique, interpreter training, and method of determining the participants' need for an interpreter. Each study was evaluated for the effect of interpreter use on four clinical topics that were most likely to either impact or reflect disparities in health and health care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In all four areas examined, use of professional interpreters is associated with improved clinical care more than is use of ad hoc interpreters, and professional interpreters appear to raise the quality of clinical care for LEP patients to approach or equal that for patients without language barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies report positive benefits of professional interpreters on communication (errors and comprehension), utilization, clinical outcomes and satisfaction with care.

The need for more research on language barriers in health care: a proposed research agenda.

Many U.S. residents who speak little English may face language barriers when seeking health care. This article describes what is currently known about language barriers in health care and outlines a research agenda based on mismatches between the current state of knowledge of language barriers and what health care stakeholders need to know. Three broad areas needing more research are discussed: the ways in which language barriers affect health and health care, the efficacy of linguistic access service interventions, and the costs of language barriers and efforts to overcome them. In each of these areas, we outline specific research questions and recommendations.