Dataset Information

"Does this doctor speak my language?" Improving the characterization of physician non-English language skills.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe the initial impact of an organizational policy change on measurement of physician non-English language proficiency.

Study setting

Multispecialty health care organization in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Study design/data collection

In response to preliminary findings suggesting that the organization's nonvalidated and undefined three-category tool for physician self-report of non-English language proficiency levels was likely inadequate, the organization asked physicians to rate their non-English language proficiency levels using an adapted Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale, a validated measure with five rating levels and descriptors. We then compared the self-reported language proficiency on the original scale and the ILR for those physicians who completed both and used regression analysis to investigate physician characteristics potentially associated with a change in score on the old versus ILR scales.

Principal findings

Six months after the ILR scale was implemented throughout the organization, 75 percent (258/342) of physicians had updated their language proficiency ratings. Among clinicians who had previously rated themselves in the "Medical/Conversational" category, there were substantial variations in scores using the ILR scale. Physicians who spoke two or more non-English languages were significantly more likely to lower their self-reported proficiency when updating from the old scale to the ILR scale.

Conclusions

The organization was willing to adopt a relatively straightforward change in how data were collected and presented to patients based on the face validity of initial findings. This organizational policy change appeared to improve how self-reported physician language proficiency was characterized.

SUBMITTER: Diamond LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3393012 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Does this doctor speak my language?" Improving the characterization of physician non-English language skills.

Diamond Lisa C LC Luft Harold S HS Chung Sukyung S Jacobs Elizabeth A EA

Health services research 20111027 1 Pt 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the initial impact of an organizational policy change on measurement of physician non-English language proficiency.<h4>Study setting</h4>Multispecialty health care organization in the San Francisco Bay Area.<h4>Study design/data collection</h4>In response to preliminary findings suggesting that the organization's nonvalidated and undefined three-category tool for physician self-report of non-English language proficiency levels was likely inadequate, the organization ...[more]

PMID: 22091825

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLanguage concordance can increase access to care for patients with language barriers and improve patient health outcomes. However, systematically assessing and tracking physician non-English language skills remains uncommon in most health systems. This is a missed opportunity for health systems to maximize language-concordant care.ObjectiveTo determine barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language proficiency assessment among primary care physicians.DesignQualitative, semi-structured interviews.ParticipantsEleven fully and partially bilingual primary care physicians from a large academic health system with a language certification program (using a clinician oral proficiency interview).ApproachInterviews aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to participation in non-English language assessment. Two researchers independently and iteratively coded transcripts using a thematic analysis approach with constant comparison to identify themes.Key resultsMost participants were women (N= 9; 82%). Participants reported proficiency in Cantonese, Mandarin, Russian, and Spanish. All fully bilingual participants (n=5) had passed the language assessment; of the partially bilingual participants (n=6), four did not test, one passed with marginal proficiency, and one did not pass. Three themes emerged as barriers to assessment participation: (1) beliefs about the negative consequences (emotional and material) of not passing the test, (2) time constraints and competing demands, and (3) challenging test format and structure. Four themes emerged as facilitators to increase assessment adoption: (1) messaging consistent with professional ethos, (2) organizational culture that incentivizes certification, (3) personal empowerment about language proficiency, and (4) individuals championing certification.ConclusionsTo increase language assessment participation and thus ensure quality language-concordant care, health systems must address the identified barriers physicians experience and leverage potential facilitators. Findings can inform health system interventions to standardize the requirements and process, increase transparency, provide resources for preparation and remediation, utilize messaging focused on patient care quality and safety, and incentivize participation.

Project description:BackgroundApproximately 25 million people in the USA are limited English proficient (LEP). When LEP patients receive care from physicians who are truly language concordant, some evidence show that language disparities are reduced, but others demonstrate worse outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the impact of language-concordant care for LEP patients with that of other interventions, including professional and ad hoc interpreters.MethodsData was collected through a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE in October 2017. The literature search strategy had three main components, which were immigrant/minority status, language barrier/proficiency, and healthcare provider/patient relationship. The quality of the articles was appraised using the Downs and Black checklist.ResultsThe 33 studies were grouped by the outcome measure studied, including quality of care (subdivided into primary care, diabetes, pain management, cancer, and inpatient), satisfaction with care/communication, medical understanding, and mental health. Of the 33, 4 (6.9%) were randomized controlled trials and the remaining 29 (87.9%) were cross-sectional studies. Seventy-six percent (25/33) of the studies demonstrated that at least one of the outcomes assessed was better for patients receiving language-concordant care, while 15% (5/33) of studies demonstrated no difference in outcomes, and 9% (3/33) studies demonstrated worse outcomes in patients receiving language-concordant care.DiscussionThe findings of this review indicate that, in the majority of situations, language-concordant care improves outcomes. Although most studies included were of good quality, none provided a standardized assessment of provider language skills. To systematically evaluate the impact of truly language-concordant care on outcomes and draw meaningful conclusions, future studies must include an assessment of clinician language proficiency. Language-concordant care offers an important way for physicians to meet the unique needs of their LEP patients.

Project description:English is widely recognized as the language of science, and English-language publications (ELPs) are rapidly increasing. It is often assumed that the number of non-ELPs is decreasing. This assumption contributes to the underuse of non-ELPs in conservation science, practice, and policy, especially at the international level. However, the number of conservation articles published in different languages is poorly documented. Using local and international search systems, we searched for scientific articles on biodiversity conservation published from 1980 to 2018 in English and 15 non-English languages. We compared the growth rate in publications across languages. In 12 of the 15 non-English languages, published conservation articles significantly increased every year over the past 39 years, at a rate similar to English-language articles. The other three languages showed contrasting results, depending on the search system. Since the 1990s, conservation science articles in most languages increased exponentially. The variation in the number of non-English-language articles identified among the search systems differed markedly (e.g., for simplified Chinese, 11,148 articles returned with local search system and 803 with Scopus). Google Scholar and local literature search systems returned the most articles for 11 and 4 non-English languages, respectively. However, the proportion of peer-reviewed conservation articles published in non-English languages was highest in Scopus, followed by Web of Science and local search systems, and lowest in Google Scholar. About 20% of the sampled non-English-language articles provided no title or abstract in English; thus, in theory, they were undiscoverable with English keywords. Possible reasons for this include language barriers and the need to disseminate research in countries where English is not widely spoken. Given the known biases in statistical methods and study characteristics between English- and non-English-language studies, non-English-language articles will continue to play an important role in improving the understanding of biodiversity and its conservation.

Project description:BackgroundPeer-assisted learning has been shown to be constructive in numerous aspects of undergraduate medical education. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of peer-assisted teaching of medical English skills to non-native English-speaking students.MethodsA medical English conversation course was conducted at Damascus University by a group of students. Targeted participants were intermediate level fellow students from the same program. A longitudinal study was carried out between 1 st to 31 st March 2019 to assess changes in self-assessment of English language skills among course participants. Pre- and post-course appraisal involved a review of previous experience with medical English language, a self-assessment of five English language skills, and an objective measurement of medical English knowledge. In addition, participants were requested to respond to a set of statements related to the importance and the usefulness of peer-assisted teaching of medical English skills. Paired-sample Student t-test was used to compare pre- and post-course appraisal results.Results42 students attended the course and completed pre- and post-course appraisals in full. Data analyses showed a statistically significant increase in participants' confidence in speaking medical English in public ( p<0.001) and using English in various medical settings (presenting and discussing cases, writing clinical reports, interviewing patients and reading English medical texts). Objective measurements of medical English knowledge confirmed a significant increase in participants' knowledge of methods of administration of therapeutics, knowledge of human body parts in English and familiarity with English medical abbreviations. Most participants agreed that peer-education was effective in teaching medical English skills to non-native English-speaking students and in increasing their confidence when using English in real-life medical scenarios.ConclusionsThe present study highlights the effectiveness of peer-assisted teaching of medical English skills to non-native English-speaking medical students. Further validation is required and should compare the effectiveness of traditional versus peer-assisted teaching approaches.

Dataset Information

"Does this doctor speak my language?" Improving the characterization of physician non-English language skills.

Objective

Study setting

Study design/data collection

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

"Does this doctor speak my language?" Improving the characterization of physician non-English language skills.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets