Severe maternal morbidity in deaf or hard of hearing women in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies on severe maternal morbidity (SMM) have often excluded women who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), even though they are at increased risk of pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes. This study compared rates of SMM during delivery and postpartum among DHH and non-DHH women. METHODS: This nationally representative retrospective cohort study used hospital discharge data from the 2004-2020 Health Care and Cost Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample. The risk of SMM with and without blood transfusion during delivery and postpartum among DHH and non-DHH women were compared using modified Poisson regression analysis. The study was conducted in the United States in 2022-2023. RESULTS: The cohort included 9351 births to DHH women for the study period, and 13,574,382 age-matched and delivery year-matched births to non-DHH women in a 1:3 case-control ratio. The main outcomes were SMM and non-transfusion SMM during delivery and postpartum. Relative risks were sequentially adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, hospital-level characteristics, and clinical characteristics. In unadjusted analyses, DHH women were at 80% higher risk for SMM (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.63-2.02, p < 0.001) during delivery and postpartum compared to non-DHH women. Adjustment for socio-demographic and hospital characteristics attenuated risk for SMM (RR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.38-1.72, p < 0.001). Adjustment for the Elixhauser comorbidity score further attenuated the risk of SMM among DHH women (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.26, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study demonstrate a critical need for inclusive preconception, prenatal, and postpartum care that address conditions that increase the risk for SMM among DHH people.

Emergency department patient-centred care perspectives from deaf and hard-of-hearing patients.

BACKGROUND: Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) patients are a priority population for emergency medicine health services research. DHH patients are at higher risk than non-DHH patients of using the emergency department (ED), have longer lengths of stay in the ED and report poor patient-provider communication. This qualitative study aimed to describe ED care-seeking and patient-centred care perspectives among DHH patients. METHODS: This qualitative study is the second phase of a mixed-methods study. The goal of this study was to further explain quantitative findings related to ED outcomes among DHH and non-DHH patients. We conducted semistructured interviews with 4 DHH American Sign Language (ASL)-users and 6 DHH English speakers from North Central Florida. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach. RESULTS: Two themes were developed: (1) DHH patients engage in a complex decision-making process to determine ED utilization and (2) patient-centred ED care differs between DHH ASL-users and DHH English speakers. The first theme describes the social-behavioural processes through which DHH patients assess their need to use the ED. The second theme focuses on the social environment within the ED: patients feeling stereotyped, involvement in the care process, pain communication, receipt of accommodations and discharge processes. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the importance of better understanding, and intervening in, DHH patient ED care-seeking and care delivery to improve patient outcomes. Like other studies, this study also finds that DHH patients are not a monolithic group and language status is an equity-relevant indicator. We also discuss recommendations for emergency medicine. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study convened a community advisory group made up of four DHH people to assist in developing research questions, data collection tools and validation of the analysis and interpretation of data. Community advisory group members who were interested in co-authorship are listed in the byline, with others in the acknowledgements. In addition, several academic-based co-authors are also deaf or hard of hearing.

Antenatal Hospital Use among Deaf and Hard of Hearing Women.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing loss is increasingly prevalent among younger adults, impacting health and health care use. Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) women have a higher risk of chronic diseases, pregnancy complications, and adverse birth outcomes compared with hearing women. Health care utilization patterns during the perinatal period remain not well understood. The objective of this study was to examine differences in antenatal emergency department and inpatient utilization among DHH and non-DHH women. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study design to analyze 2002 to 2013 Massachusetts Pregnancy to Early Life Longitudinal data to compare antenatal inpatient and emergency department use between DHH (N = 925) and hearing (N = 2,895) women with singleton deliveries. Matching was done based on delivery year, age at delivery, and birth parity in 1:3 case-control ratio. Demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and hospital characteristics were first compared for DHH mothers and the matched control group using chi-squared tests and t-tests. Multivariable models were adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among DHH women (N = 925), 49% had at least one emergency department visit, 19% had an observational stay, and 14% had a nondelivery hospital stay compared with 26, 14, and 6%, respectively, among hearing women (N = 28,95) during the antenatal period (all ps < 0.001). The risk of nondelivery emergency department visits (risk ratio [RR] 1.58; p < 0.001) and inpatient stays (RR = 1.89; p < 0.001) remained higher among DHH women compared with hearing women even after adjustment. Having four or more antenatal emergency department visits (7 vs. 2%) and two or more nondelivery hospital stays (4 vs. 0.4%) were more common among pregnant DHH women compared with their controls (all p-values < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that DHH women use emergency departments and inpatient services at a significantly higher rate than their hearing controls during the antenatal period. A systematic investigation of the mechanisms for these findings are needed. KEY POINTS: · Antenatal emergency department use is significantly higher among deaf and hard of hearing women.. · Antenatal hospitalizations are significantly higher among deaf and hard of hearing women.. · Hearing loss screening may identify those at risk for adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes..

Call to Action: Eliminate Barriers Faced by Medical Students With Disabilities.

When physicians have a disability or chronic condition, they can offer deeper insight and ability into managing the needs of patients with similar conditions. Yet an alarming 2021 survey found that only 40.7% of physicians feel confident that they provide the same level of care to people with disabilities (PWD) as those without. This may contribute to troubling health care disparities for the over 61 million Americans living with disabilities. In a recent report, The American Medical Association (AMA) recognized that increased concordance between patients and physicians with disabilities is key to resolving health care inequities for PWD, yet although 1 in 5 patients reports a disability, only 1 in 33 physicians identifies as such. This is because prospective medical students with disabilities face many barriers in medical education and practice. We call for specific changes to medical school admission processes and curricula to promote a more just and diverse workforce which includes more physicians with disabilities.

"They're Not Willing To Accommodate Deaf patients": Communication Experiences of Deaf American Sign Language Users in the Emergency Department.

Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) are more likely to use the emergency department (ED) than their hearing English-speaking counterparts and are also at higher risk of receiving inaccessible communication. The purpose of this study is to explore the ED communication experience of Deaf patients. A descriptive qualitative study was performed by interviewing 11 Deaf people who had used the ED in the past 2 years. Applying a descriptive thematic analysis, we developed five themes: (1) requesting communication access can be stressful, frustrating, and time-consuming; (2) perspectives and experiences with Video Remote Interpreting (VRI); (3) expectations, benefits, and drawbacks of using on-site ASL interpreters; (4) written and oral communication provides insufficient information to Deaf patients; and (5) ED staff and providers lack cultural sensitivity and awareness towards Deaf patients. Findings are discussed with respect to medical and interpreting ethics to improve ED communication for Deaf patients.

Implementation of a Hearing Loss Screening Intervention in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Hearing loss (HL) is underdiagnosed and often unaddressed. A recent study of screening for HL using an electronic prompt showed efficacy in increasing appropriate referrals for subsequent testing. We build on the results of this study using a qualitative lens to explore implementation processes through the perspectives of family medicine clinicians. METHODS: We collected clinic observations and semistructured interviews of family medicine clinicians and residents who interacted with the HL prompt. All data were analyzed using thematic, framework, and mixed methods integration strategies. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 clinicians and conducted 10 observations. Thematic analysis resulted in 6 themes: (1) the prompt was overwhelmingly viewed as easy, simple to use, accurate; (2) clinicians considered prompt as an effective way to increase awareness and conversations with patients about HL; (3) clinician and staff buy-in played a vital role in implementation; (4) clinicians prioritized prompt during annual visits; (5) medical assistant involvement in prompt workflow varied by health system, clinic, and clinician; (6) prompt resulted in more conversations about HL, but uncertain impact on patient outcomes. Themes are presented alongside constructs of normalization process theory and intervention outcomes. CONCLUSION: Integration of a HL screening prompt into clinical practice varied by clinician buy-in and beliefs about the impact on patient outcomes, involvement of medical assistants, and prioritization during clinical visits. Further research is needed to understand how to leverage clinician and staff buy-in and whether implementation of a new clinical prompt has sustained impact on HL screening and patient outcomes.

Effective Hearing Loss Screening in Primary Care: The Early Auditory Referral-Primary Care Study.

PURPOSE: Hearing loss, the second most common disability in the United States, is under-diagnosed and under-treated. Identifying it in early stages could prevent its known substantial adverse outcomes. METHODS: A multiple baseline design was implemented to assess a screening paradigm for identifying and referring patients aged ≥55 years with hearing loss at 10 family medicine clinics in 2 health systems. Patients completed a consent form and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHI). An electronic alert prompted clinicians to screen for hearing loss during visits. RESULTS: The 14,877 eligible patients during the study period had 36,701 encounters. Referral rates in the family medicine clinics increased from a baseline rate of 3.2% to 14.4% in 1 health system and from a baseline rate of 0.7% to 4.7% in the other. A general medicine comparison group showed referral rate increase from the 3.0% baseline rate to 3.3%. Of the 5,883 study patients who completed the HHI 25.2% (n=1,484) had HHI scores suggestive of hearing loss; those patients had higher referral rates, 28% vs 9.2% (P <.001). Of 1,660 patients referred for hearing testing, 717 had audiology data available for analysis: 669 (93.3%) were rated appropriately referred and 421 (58.7%) were considered hearing aid candidates. Overall, 71.5% of patients contacted felt their referral was appropriate. CONCLUSION: An electronic alert used to remind clinicians to ask patients aged ≥55 years about hearing loss significantly increased audiology referrals for at-risk patients. Audiologic and audiogram data support the effectiveness of the prompt. Clinicians should consider adopting this method to identify patients with hearing loss to reduce its known and adverse sequelae.

Assessing Health Literacy in Deaf American Sign Language Users.

Communication and language barriers isolate Deaf American Sign Language (ASL) users from mass media, health care messages, and health care communication, which, when coupled with social marginalization, places them at a high risk for inadequate health literacy. Our objectives were to translate, adapt, and develop an accessible health literacy instrument in ASL and to assess the prevalence and correlates of inadequate health literacy among Deaf ASL users and hearing English speakers using a cross-sectional design. A total of 405 participants (166 Deaf and 239 hearing) were enrolled in the study. The Newest Vital Sign was adapted, translated, and developed into an ASL version (ASL-NVS). We found that 48% of Deaf participants had inadequate health literacy, and Deaf individuals were 6.9 times more likely than hearing participants to have inadequate health literacy. The new ASL-NVS, available on a self-administered computer platform, demonstrated good correlation with reading literacy. The prevalence of Deaf ASL users with inadequate health literacy is substantial, warranting further interventions and research.

Self-Reported Accommodation Needs for Patients with Disabilities in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: People with disabilities experience barriers to engaging with health care due to inaccessible social and physical environments at primary care clinics. Despite legal mandates, identification and provision of necessary accommodations for this population at primary care clinics are poor. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to assess patient-reported disability status and accommodation needs among patients at a primary care clinic. METHODS: An electronic health record-based Disability and Accommodations Questionnaire assessing disability status, types, and accommodation needs was developed by subject matter experts at Michigan Medicine and the University of Michigan Council for Disability Concerns. The questionnaire underwent multiple rounds of reviews and revisions before its use in clinical settings. A paper-based questionnaire was administered to all patients presenting for a wellness-based visit at an academic health system primary care clinic in southeast Michigan. Data were collected between March 2022 and August 2022. RESULTS: Approximately 13% of the 541 patients self-reported a disability, with 54.2% indicating at least one needed accommodation. The most commonly reported disabilities were mental health and hearing-related disabilities, by 4.8% and 4.6% of patients, respectively. The most frequently requested accommodations were communication- or language-based (for example, presence of an American Sign Language interpreter, assistive listening devices), cognitive-based (for example, inclusion of a support person with care decisions), and mobility-based (for example, assistance with transfers). CONCLUSION: The Disability and Accommodations Questionnaire helped identify the presence of a disability, its types, and any requested accommodations requested at a primary care health center.

Cesarean birth and adverse birth outcomes among sub-populations of deaf and hard-of-hearing people.

BACKGROUND: Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) people are at higher risk than their non-DHH counterparts of experiencing adverse birth outcomes. There is a lack of research focusing on social, linguistic, and medical factors related to being DHH which may identify groups of DHH people who experience more inequity. OBJECTIVE: Examine difference in prevalence of cesarean and adverse birth outcomes among diverse sub-groups of DHH people. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of DHH birthing people in the U.S. who gave birth within the past 10 years. The sample was predominantly white, college educated, and married. We assessed cesarean birth and three adverse birth outcomes: preterm birth, low birthweight, and NICU admission post-delivery. DHH-specific variables were genetic etiology of hearing loss, preferred language (i.e., American Sign Language, English, or bilingual), severity of hearing loss, age of onset of hearing loss, and self-reported quality of perinatal care communication. We estimated prevalence, 95 % confidence intervals, and unadjusted prevalence ratios. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of our sample reported a cesarean birth. Overall, there were no significant differences in prevalence across the outcome variables with respect to preferred language, genetic etiology, severity, and age of onset. Poorer perinatal care communication quality was associated with higher prevalence of preterm birth (PR = 2.37) and NICU admission (PR = 1.91). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no evidence supporting differences in obstetric outcomes among DHH birthing people across medical factors related to deafness. Findings support the important role of communication access for DHH people in healthcare environments.

Examining the differences of perceptions and experience with online health information accessibility between deaf and hearing individuals: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Describe and compare the experiences and preferences of Deaf and hearing individuals with different levels of health literacy in accessing, interpreting, and acting upon online health information. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 Deaf and 10 hearing participants with high and low health literacy from three healthcare sites. We conducted thematic analysis of the transcripts to explore information navigation experiences, information sources and dissemination preferences. RESULTS: We found thematic differences between Deaf and hearing participants with high and low health literacy in terms of information needs, information search experiences, information search perceptions, and preferred information dissemination approaches. Relative to hearing counterparts, Deaf participants were more likely to encounter challenges in accessing and understanding online information. Deaf participants with low health literacy were more likely to rely on visual graphics to support their understanding of the information than those with high health literacy. Deaf participants advocated for tailored approaches to disseminate health information to Deaf communities. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that differences in online health information navigation experiences and accessibility may inform disparities in health literacy outcomes between Deaf and hearing individuals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Online health information should be presented in a manner accessible to Deaf community members.

Maternal Health Experiences of Black Deaf and Hard of Hearing Women in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) women are faced with numerous health inequities, including adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes. These outcomes are likely exacerbated for Black DHH women because of the intersection of disability and race. This study aimed to explore the pregnancy and birth experiences of Black DHH women to identify factors that influence their pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted between 2018 and 2019 with 67 DHH women who gave birth in the past five years. The present study represents a subgroup analysis of eight of the 67 women who self-identified as Black. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emerging themes. RESULTS: Primary themes centered on unmet needs, barriers, and facilitators. Barriers included limited access to health information owing to communication difficulties and challenges obtaining accommodations. Key facilitators included the availability of sign language interpreters, familial support, and cultural understanding from providers. Participants emphasized these facilitators in their recommendations to providers and DHH women. Findings also underscored the critical role of recognizing cultural identity in perinatal health care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This study outlines themes that affect pregnancy and birthing experiences among Black DHH women in the United States. Study implications include a call to action for providers to prioritize communication accommodations, accessible information, and compassionate care for all Black DHH women. Furthermore, future work should explore the impact of cultural and racial concordance between patients and their health care providers and staff. Understanding how intersectional identities affect perinatal health care access is crucial for reducing disparities among Black DHH women.

"There is No Communication": A Qualitative Examination of Deaf Signers' Experiences With Advance Care Planning.

Objective(s): Deaf American Sign Language (ASL) users are subject to health care disparities resulting from communication and language barriers. Currently, few resources on advance care planning and end-of-life care exist in ASL. This study explores Deaf ASL users' perceptions and experiences with end-of-life care and advance care planning. Methods: Semi-structured 1:1 interviews with Deaf signers were translated, and transcribed into English by a bilingual researcher. Investigators inductively coded transcripts and identified themes of barriers, facilitators, knowledge, and sources of information regarding end-of-life care. Participants' knowledge of advance care planning and completion of advance care planning documents were evaluated using a brief assessment. Results: Eleven Deaf ASL users participated in the study with two deaf interviewers. Participants reported barriers to end-of-life care including poor provider communication, inaccessible sources, and inadequate provision of accommodations, leading to patient distrust. Participants' understanding of advance care planning was facilitated by accessible forms of communication and their social networks, such as family, friends, and Deaf peers. Participants primarily gained information on end-of-life care from first-hand familial experience, peers, and media. Participants' mean advance care planning knowledge was 4.6 out of 15 (SD = 2.6). Conclusions: Deaf ASL users face scarce accessible resources around end-of-life care, lowering their ability to understand and proceed with advance care planning. Implementation of ASL accessible advance care planning educational tools in health care settings is needed.

The Association of Hearing Loss with Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with hearing loss (HL) are at higher risk for hospitalizations, and may be for readmissions, compared with their hearing peers. The objective of this prospective study was to confirm retrospective studies suggesting that HL increases hospital readmissions, and, if confirmed, possible causes for it. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of English-speaking patients >55 years old admitted to general medical and surgical floors at 2 large hospital systems in southeastern Michigan over a 2-year period was conducted. All patients underwent bedside audiometric testing. HL presence and severity were categorized using World Health Organization pure tone assessment parameters. Readmission rates, Charlson comorbidity index, socio-demographic and medical variables were obtained from Epic EMR databases. OUTCOMES: There were 1247 hospitalized patients enrolled. Of these, 76.8% had documented HL of which 50.5% (630) was mild HL and 26.3% (328) moderate or worse HL. Patients with any HL were older and more likely to be non-Hispanic, white, male, and had less education, lower health literacy, more comorbidities, and more difficulty communicating with their doctor. Readmission rates at 30 and 90-days were similar between HL and hearing groups, after adjusting for HL severity, Charlston index, and numerous potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Patients with HL do not seem to have higher rates of hospital readmissions. We did find high frequency of HL in hospitalized patients along with significant communication difficulties that patients had with their clinicians. These findings have implications for measures to improve patient-physician communication, potentially improving long-term health outcomes.

Healthcare communication access among deaf and hard-of-hearing people during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) people report ineffective healthcare communication. Limited research has been conducted on healthcare communication during pregnancy. This study's aim was to assess communication accommodations and experiences during pregnancy for DHH people. METHODS: An accessible web-based survey was administered to a non-probability sample of DHH people through national organizations, social media, and snowball sampling. Eligibility criteria included being 21 years or older; given birth in the U.S. within the past 10 years, report hearing loss prior to the most recent birth. Questions focused on healthcare experiences and information access during their last pregnancy. The sample included 583 respondents for the present analysis. We describe the communication accommodations requested and received during pregnancy, segmented by preferred language. RESULTS: Most DHH participants reported communication with prenatal clinicians as "good" or "very good". On-site interpreter services were most commonly requested by American Sign Language (ASL) only and bilingual DHH people. Interpersonal communication modification requests (e.g., speaking louder) were rarely obliged. CONCLUSION: This study is the first national examination of requested and received communication accommodations for DHH patients during the perinatal period. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare providers should work closely with patients to ensure effective communication access is provided.

Health literacy and the disenfranchised: the importance of collaboration between limited English proficiency and health literacy researchers.

Inadequate health literacy and limited English proficiency are associated with poor health care access and outcomes. Despite what appears to be an interaction phenomenon--whereby the rate of inadequate health literacy is particularly high among limited English proficiency populations--researchers in health literacy and limited English proficiency rarely collaborate. As a result, few health literacy instruments and interventions have been developed or validated for smaller linguistic populations. Interventions to improve health outcomes for people with low health literacy and limited English proficiency show great potential to alleviate many of the health disparities currently experienced by some of the most disenfranchised individuals in our health care system, those from smaller linguistic minority groups, including Deaf American Sign Language users. It is critical for health literacy and limited English proficiency researchers to work together to understand how culture, language, literacy, education, and disabilities influence health disparities and health outcomes. It is important to ensure that research is collaborative and inclusive in order to broaden the reach of future interventions to smaller linguistic minority populations.

Opioid use disorder-related emergency department visits among deaf or hard of hearing adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the devastating consequences of the opioid epidemic, little is known about its impact on the deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) community. OBJECTIVE: To determine risk of OUD-related ED visits, ED visits involving a prescription or non-prescription opioid overdose, and mortality during OUD-related ED visits among DHH adults, compared to non-DHH adults. METHODS: We analyzed the combined 2016-2017 National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS). We identified DHH adults using ICD-10-CM codes, extracting 63,865 case records of ED visits among DHH adults ages 18-64. The control group of non-DHH adult ED visits was age-, sex-, and admission year-matched in a 1:3 case-control ratio. We conducted multi-level logistic regression models for the binary dependent variables. Covariates included sociodemographic, hospital, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: In our unadjusted models, compared to non-DHH adults, DHH adults had significantly higher risk for OUD-related ED visits (OR = 1.69, 95%CI: 1.59-1.80, p < 0.001), ED visits involving prescription (OR = 1.80, 95%CI: 1.47-2.20, p < 0.001) and non-prescription opioid overdose (OR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.05-1.63, p < 0.05), and mortality during OUD-related ED visits (OR = 2.22, 95%CI: 1.21-4.08, p < 0.05). However, after adjustment for confounding variables, including comorbid chronic pain and psychiatric conditions, except OUD-related ED visits, the risk for ED visits involving prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose, and OUD-related mortality became non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to adults without hearing loss, DHH non-elderly adults are at a higher risk of OUD-related ED visits. Future research is needed to understand the interplay between chronic pain, psychiatric conditions, and OUD among DHH adults.

Have Almost Fifty Years Of Disability Civil Rights Laws Achieved Equitable Care?

For almost fifty years, federal civil rights laws such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and Section 1557 and other provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have prohibited discrimination against Americans with disabilities, including in health care. Despite these laws, disabled Americans continue to experience disparities in health and health care, from preventive care to home and community-based services. In its 2022 Health Equity Framework for People with Disabilities, the National Council on Disability highlighted some of these disparities and recommended remedies. To explore these concerns, this article examines disability inequities and potential solutions within six areas. It concludes by recommending the ratification of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to reinvigorate US efforts to maximize the health and dignity of disabled Americans and support their full participation in the community.

Spotlighting Disability in a Major Electronic Health Record: Michigan Medicine's Disability and Accommodations Tab.

People with disabilities represent the largest minority group in the United States and a priority population for health services research. Despite federal civil rights law, people with disabilities face inaccessible health care environments that fail to accommodate their disability. We present Michigan Medicine's Disability and Accommodations Tab. This patient-facing questionnaire and shared data field in the electronic health record enables the collection and reporting of patient disability-related accommodations. The Disability Tab seeks to address provider- and clinic staff-reported barriers to providing accommodations and fosters an opportunity to redesign health care to meet the needs of people with disabilities.