Interpreter Use and Patient Satisfaction in the Otolaryngology Outpatient Clinic.

Background Communication between providers and patients is essential to patient care and to the patient-physician relationship. It plays a significant role in both measurable and perceived quality of care. This study explores the satisfaction of English-speaking and limited English proficiency (LEP) patients with English-speaking providers, focusing on the correlation between patients' primary language and the use of interpreter services on patients' visit satisfaction. Methodology This study was designed to have a sample size sufficient to detect a 10% difference in the primary outcome, overall visit satisfaction, between language-concordant patients and LEP patients in the interpreter and no interpreter groups, assuming a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. All collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software, version 25 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA), and significance was determined if p <0.05. Results Of the total 209 patients, 65 utilized professional interpreter services, nine used an ad-hoc interpreter, and 135 did not require an interpreter. Patients who used an interpreter demonstrated lower visit satisfaction compared with patients who did not (p < 0.001). Patients expressed significantly greater preference for in-person interpreter (mean = 9.73) or a family member (mean = 9.44) compared to telephone services (mean = 8.50) (p = 0.002). The overall satisfaction scores did not significantly differ between different interpreter types (p = 0.157). Conclusions LEP patients experienced lower visit satisfaction compared to language-concordant patients. The data suggest that perceived quality of communication was a factor in these lower satisfaction reports. While LEP patients did prefer in-person interpreters, there was no significant difference in overall visit satisfaction between different types of interpreters.

U.S. practice variations in the treatment of chronic laryngopharyngeal neuropathy.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate differences in evaluation and workup of laryngopharyngeal neuropathy in a population of general otolaryngologists and fellowship-trained laryngologists. STUDY DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: Members of the American Laryngological Association (ALA) and a general otolaryngologist database from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) were surveyed. A questionnaire was e-mailed or mailed to 179 members of the ALA and 900 members from the AAO-HNS database. RESULTS: Responses were received from 43 subjects in the ALA group (24.5%) and 96 in the AAO-HNS database group (10.6%). Compared to the general otolaryngologists surveyed, ALA members were found to be more likely to practice in academics (79.6% vs. 6.6%) and to have been fellowship trained (79.5% vs. 16.5%). Among the general otolaryngologists, 44.6% reported being unfamiliar with laryngopharyngeal neuropathy compared to 0% from the ALA group (P < .0001). After accounting for the respondents unfamiliar with the condition, the general otolaryngologists reported being less comfortable in diagnosing laryngopharyngeal neuropathy (P < .0001) and were more concerned about the over-diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux when compared to the ALA (P = .0030). CONCLUSION: General otolaryngologists and fellowship-trained laryngologist have several differences in the knowledge, workup, and treatment of chronic laryngopharyngeal neuropathy. This may translate to unnecessary treatments and tests for effected patients and should be addressed with further education targeting general otolaryngologists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.