Literature DB >> 11054199

Are diagnostic testing and admission rates higher in non-English-speaking versus English-speaking patients in the emergency department?

M A Waxman1, M A Levitt.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether non-English-speaking patients who present to an emergency department have more diagnostic tests ordered, higher admission rate, and longer length of stay in the ED than English-speaking patients for 2 common complaints, chest pain and abdominal pain.
METHODS: This prospective, comparative, observational study was conducted at a public hospital ED. The study group was composed of 324 patients (172 non-English-speaking and 152 English-speaking) presenting with nontraumatic abdominal pain (148) or chest pain (176). The main outcome measures were admission rates, length of stay in the ED, and diagnostic test and procedure ordering.
RESULTS: The mean age for the total sample was 45.8+/-15.5 years (range 14 to 87 years); 45.4% (147/324) of the patients were male. For the non-English-speaking patients, the language distribution was Spanish (31.0%), other (9.0%), Cantonese (5.9%), Hindi (2.5%), Mien (1.5%), Arabic (1.9%), Russian (0.9%), Mandarin (0.6%), and Korean (0.3%). The admission rate was 37.8% for English-speaking patients versus 42.8% for non-English-speaking patients in the total sample (mean difference in proportions 5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6% to 16%; 34.2% for English-speaking versus 9.1% for non-English-speaking patients presenting with abdominal pain, mean difference in proportions 5%, 95% CI -11% to 21%) and 40.9% for English-speaking versus 45.8% for non-English-speaking patients presenting with chest pain (mean difference in proportions 5%, 95% CI -10% to 20%). Power was 80% to detect a 15% difference in admission rates at an alpha value of.05. There was no statistically significant difference in ordering of diagnostic tests between the non-English-speaking and English-speaking patients with chest pain. Non-English-speaking patients with abdominal pain had 5 tests ordered more often than English-speaking patients. The mean difference in proportions (with 95% CIs) for these tests were CBC count 18.4% (5.1% to 31.7%), serum electrolytes 17.9% (3.8% to 31. 9%), urinalysis 20.0% (4.5% to 35.6%), ECG 23.4% (8.6% to 38.2%), and abdominal computed tomographic scan 10.9% (1.0% to 20.8%). There was no statistically significant difference between English-speaking and non-English-speaking patients for ED length of stay in the total sample (mean difference 29.8, 95% CI -37.5 to 97.1 minutes; for the abdominal pain subgroup, mean difference 19.5, 95% CI -74.6 to 113.5 minutes; and for the chest pain subgroup, mean difference 37.9, 95% CI -58.0 to 133.8 minutes).
CONCLUSION: Significantly more tests are ordered for non-English-speaking patients with abdominal pain in the ED, including 3 times as many abdominal computed tomographic scans. There is no increase in test ordering with non-English-speaking patients with complaints of chest pain in the ED. When comparing English-speaking and non-English-speaking patients, there were no statistically significant differences in admission rates or length of stay in the ED.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11054199     DOI: 10.1067/mem.2000.108315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  19 in total

1.  Clinician ratings of interpreter mediated visits in underserved primary care settings with ad hoc, in-person professional, and video conferencing modes.

Authors:  Anna M Nápoles; Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Leah S Karliner; Helen O'Brien; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2010-02

2.  Parental English proficiency and children's health services access.

Authors:  Stella M Yu; Z Jennifer Huang; Renee H Schwalberg; Rebecca M Nyman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-06-29       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  The need for more research on language barriers in health care: a proposed research agenda.

Authors:  Elizabeth Jacobs; Alice H M Chen; Leah S Karliner; Niels Agger-Gupta; Sunita Mutha
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 4.  Impact of patient language proficiency and interpreter service use on the quality of psychiatric care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Amy M Bauer; Margarita Alegría
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  Completeness of Written Discharge Guidance for English- and Spanish-Speaking Patient Families.

Authors:  Erin Platter; Michelle Y Hamline; Daniel J Tancredi; Erik Fernandez Y Garcia; Jennifer L Rosenthal
Journal:  Hosp Pediatr       Date:  2019-06-10

6.  The Use of a Mobile Application to Increase Access to Interpreters for Cancer Patients With Limited English Proficiency: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Bharat Narang; So-Young Park; Ingrid O Norrmén-Smith; Michelle Lange; Alex J Ocampo; Francesca M Gany; Lisa C Diamond
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Teaching medical students how to use interpreters: a three year experience.

Authors:  Mimi McEvoy; Maria Teresa Santos; Maria Marzan; Eric H Green; Felise B Milan
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2009-09-02

Review 8.  A plan for action: key perspectives from the racial/ethnic disparities strategy forum.

Authors:  Roderick K King; Alexander R Green; Aswita Tan-McGrory; Elizabeth J Donahue; Jessie Kimbrough-Sugick; Joseph R Betancourt
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.911

9.  The Association Between Limited English Proficiency and Unplanned Emergency Department Revisit Within 72 Hours.

Authors:  Ka Ming Ngai; Corita R Grudzen; Roy Lee; Vicky Y Tong; Lynne D Richardson; Alicia Fernandez
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 5.721

Review 10.  Factors associated with imaging overuse in the emergency department: A systematic review.

Authors:  Monica Tung; Ritu Sharma; Jeremiah S Hinson; Stephanie Nothelle; Jean Pannikottu; Jodi B Segal
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.