Nattaly E Greene1, Berenice N Fuentes-Juárez2, Coleen S Sabatini3. 1. School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 2. Guilford College, Greensboro, North Carolina. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital Oakland, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication is the foundation of any patient-doctor relationship. Patients who are unable to communicate effectively with physicians because of language barriers may face disparities in accessing orthopaedic care and in the evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal symptoms. We evaluated whether Spanish-speaking patients face disparities scheduling appointments with orthopaedists via the telephone. METHODS: From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) web site, we randomly selected 50 orthopaedic surgeons' offices in California specializing in knee surgery. The investigator called eligible offices using a script to request an appointment for a hypothetical Spanish-speaking or English-speaking 65-year-old man with knee pain. The caller randomly selected the patient's primary language for this first call. A second call was placed a week later requesting an appointment for an identical patient who spoke the alternate language. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients' access to appointments with an orthopaedic surgeon (p = 0.8256). Thirty-six English-speaking patients and 35 Spanish-speaking patients were offered an appointment. Twenty-eight Spanish-speaking patients were instructed to bring a friend or family member who could translate for them, 3 were told that the provider spoke sufficient Spanish to communicate without the need for an interpreter, and 4 were told that an interpreter would be made available. CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect a disparity between Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients' access to appointments with an orthopaedic surgeon. However, 80% of Spanish-speaking patients were asked to rely on nonqualified interpreters for their orthopaedic appointment. This study suggests that orthopaedic offices in California depend heavily on ad hoc interpreters rather than professional interpretation services. It also highlights potential barriers to the provision of qualified interpreters. Additional study is warranted to assess how this lack of adequate utilization of medical interpreters affects the patient-doctor relationship, the quality of care received, and the financial burden on the health system. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Optimizing the care that we provide to our patients is a goal of every orthopaedic surgeon. We highlight the importance of utilizing professional interpreters as a means to reduce health-care disparities and overall health-care costs, as well as the importance of improving reimbursement and infrastructure for physicians to utilize qualified interpreters in caring for their limited-English-proficient patients.
BACKGROUND: Communication is the foundation of any patient-doctor relationship. Patients who are unable to communicate effectively with physicians because of language barriers may face disparities in accessing orthopaedic care and in the evaluation and treatment of musculoskeletal symptoms. We evaluated whether Spanish-speaking patients face disparities scheduling appointments with orthopaedists via the telephone. METHODS: From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) web site, we randomly selected 50 orthopaedic surgeons' offices in California specializing in knee surgery. The investigator called eligible offices using a script to request an appointment for a hypothetical Spanish-speaking or English-speaking 65-year-old man with knee pain. The caller randomly selected the patient's primary language for this first call. A second call was placed a week later requesting an appointment for an identical patient who spoke the alternate language. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients' access to appointments with an orthopaedic surgeon (p = 0.8256). Thirty-six English-speaking patients and 35 Spanish-speaking patients were offered an appointment. Twenty-eight Spanish-speaking patients were instructed to bring a friend or family member who could translate for them, 3 were told that the provider spoke sufficient Spanish to communicate without the need for an interpreter, and 4 were told that an interpreter would be made available. CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect a disparity between Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients' access to appointments with an orthopaedic surgeon. However, 80% of Spanish-speaking patients were asked to rely on nonqualified interpreters for their orthopaedic appointment. This study suggests that orthopaedic offices in California depend heavily on ad hoc interpreters rather than professional interpretation services. It also highlights potential barriers to the provision of qualified interpreters. Additional study is warranted to assess how this lack of adequate utilization of medical interpreters affects the patient-doctor relationship, the quality of care received, and the financial burden on the health system. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Optimizing the care that we provide to our patients is a goal of every orthopaedic surgeon. We highlight the importance of utilizing professional interpreters as a means to reduce health-care disparities and overall health-care costs, as well as the importance of improving reimbursement and infrastructure for physicians to utilize qualified interpreters in caring for their limited-English-proficient patients.