Jonathan S Lee1,2, Eliseo J Pérez-Stable3, Steven E Gregorich1,2, Michael H Crawford4, Adrienne Green5, Jennifer Livaudais-Toman1,2, Leah S Karliner6,7. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Multiethnic Health Equity Research Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Office of the Director, National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Division of Cardiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. leah.karliner@ucsf.edu. 7. Multiethnic Health Equity Research Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. leah.karliner@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Language barriers disrupt communication and impede informed consent for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) undergoing healthcare procedures. Effective interventions for this disparity remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of a bedside interpreter phone system intervention on informed consent for patients with LEP and compare outcomes to those of English speakers. DESIGN: Prospective, pre-post intervention implementation study using propensity analysis. SUBJECTS: Hospitalized patients undergoing invasive procedures on the cardiovascular, general surgery or orthopedic surgery floors. INTERVENTION: Installation of dual-handset interpreter phones at every bedside enabling 24-h immediate access to professional interpreters. MAIN MEASURES: Primary predictor: pre- vs. post-implementation group; secondary predictor: post-implementation patients with LEP vs. English speakers. Primary outcomes: three central informed consent elements, patient-reported understanding of the (1) reasons for and (2) risks of the procedure and (3) having had all questions answered. We considered consent adequately informed when all three elements were met. KEY RESULTS: We enrolled 152 Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients with LEP (84 pre- and 68 post-implementation) and 86 English speakers. Post-implementation (vs. pre-implementation) patients with LEP were more likely to meet criteria for adequately informed consent (54% vs. 29%, p = 0.001) and, after propensity score adjustment, had significantly higher odds of adequately informed consent (AOR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15-5.72) as well as of each consent element individually. However, compared to post-implementation English speakers, post-implementation patients with LEP had significantly lower adjusted odds of adequately informed consent (AOR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: A bedside interpreter phone system intervention to increase rapid access to professional interpreters was associated with improvements in patient-reported informed consent and should be considered by hospitals seeking to improve care for patients with LEP; however, these improvements did not eliminate the language-based disparity. Additional clinician educational interventions and more language-concordant care may be necessary for informed consent to equal that for English speakers.
BACKGROUND: Language barriers disrupt communication and impede informed consent for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) undergoing healthcare procedures. Effective interventions for this disparity remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of a bedside interpreter phone system intervention on informed consent for patients with LEP and compare outcomes to those of English speakers. DESIGN: Prospective, pre-post intervention implementation study using propensity analysis. SUBJECTS: Hospitalized patients undergoing invasive procedures on the cardiovascular, general surgery or orthopedic surgery floors. INTERVENTION: Installation of dual-handset interpreter phones at every bedside enabling 24-h immediate access to professional interpreters. MAIN MEASURES: Primary predictor: pre- vs. post-implementation group; secondary predictor: post-implementation patients with LEP vs. English speakers. Primary outcomes: three central informed consent elements, patient-reported understanding of the (1) reasons for and (2) risks of the procedure and (3) having had all questions answered. We considered consent adequately informed when all three elements were met. KEY RESULTS: We enrolled 152 Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients with LEP (84 pre- and 68 post-implementation) and 86 English speakers. Post-implementation (vs. pre-implementation) patients with LEP were more likely to meet criteria for adequately informed consent (54% vs. 29%, p = 0.001) and, after propensity score adjustment, had significantly higher odds of adequately informed consent (AOR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15-5.72) as well as of each consent element individually. However, compared to post-implementation English speakers, post-implementation patients with LEP had significantly lower adjusted odds of adequately informed consent (AOR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: A bedside interpreter phone system intervention to increase rapid access to professional interpreters was associated with improvements in patient-reported informed consent and should be considered by hospitals seeking to improve care for patients with LEP; however, these improvements did not eliminate the language-based disparity. Additional clinician educational interventions and more language-concordant care may be necessary for informed consent to equal that for English speakers.
Entities:
Keywords:
communication barriers; informed consent; language access; limited English proficiency; medical interpreters; physician-patient relations
Authors: Paul Kinnersley; Katie Phillips; Katherine Savage; Mark J Kelly; Elinor Farrell; Ben Morgan; Robert Whistance; Vicky Lewis; Mala K Mann; Bethan L Stephens; Jane Blazeby; Glyn Elwyn; Adrian G K Edwards Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-07-06
Authors: Leah S Karliner; Andrew Auerbach; Anna Nápoles; Dean Schillinger; Dana Nickleach; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jonathan S Lee; Anna Nápoles; Sunita Mutha; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Steven E Gregorich; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Leah S Karliner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-07-24
Authors: Jessica E McDade; Aleksandra E Olszewski; Pingping Qu; Jessica Ramos; Shaquita Bell; Alicia Adiele; Joan Roberts; Tumaini R Coker Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 3.569