Dataset Information

Impact of Physician-Patient Language Concordance on Patient Outcomes and Adherence to Clinical Chest Pain Recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objective was to evaluate if there is an association between patient-physician language concordance and adverse patient outcomes or physician adherence to clinical recommendations for emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult ED chest pain encounters with a troponin order from May 2016 to September 2017 across 15 community EDs. Outcomes were 30-day acute myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality, hospital admission/observation, or noninvasive cardiac testing. To assess patient outcomes, we used the overall cohort. To assess adherence to clinical recommendations, we used a subgroup of patients with a low-risk HEART score. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to compare the odds of the outcomes between language concordant and discordant patient-physician pairs, controlling for patient characteristics.

Results

Overall, 52,014 ED encounters were included (10,791 low-risk HEART encounters). Of those 6,452 (12.4%) encounters were language discordant and 1.7% in each group had an adverse outcome. Adjusted models demonstrated no increased risk for language discordant ED encounters when comparing adverse outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 1.5) for all patients or recommended care (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.2) for low-risk patients.

Conclusions

No associations were found between patient-physician language concordance and outcomes or physician adherence to clinical recommendations for ED patients with chest pain. Accessible and effective interpretation services, combined with a decision support tool with standard clinical recommendations, may have contributed to equitable care.

SUBMITTER: Altman DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7293585 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Physician-Patient Language Concordance on Patient Outcomes and Adherence to Clinical Chest Pain Recommendations.

Altman Danielle E DE Sun Benjamin C BC Lin Bryan B Baecker Aileen A Samuels-Kalow Margaret M Park Stacy S Shen Ernest E Wu Yi-Lin YL Sharp Adam A

Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine 20200312 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective was to evaluate if there is an association between patient-physician language concordance and adverse patient outcomes or physician adherence to clinical recommendations for emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult ED chest pain encounters with a troponin order from May 2016 to September 2017 across 15 community EDs. Outcomes were 30-day acute myocardial infarction or all-cause mo ...[more]

PMID: 32056327

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePatients who live in minority language communities often receive health care services of lower quality and safety compared with patients who speak the majority language. Yet the outcomes associated with care provided by physicians who speak a patient's primary language remain unknown.ObjectiveTo examine patient-physician language concordance and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among patients with hypertension.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study identified adults with self-reported hypertension in the Canadian Community Health Survey, a national survey that collects data from a representative sample of Canadians, from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2014. Respondents (excluding those living in Quebec) had their hospitalization and mortality records linked to their survey responses. Data were analyzed from October 2023 to May 2024.ExposuresRespondents' primary home language was defined using language spoken most often at home. Language spoken with a regular physician was used to measure patient-physician language concordance. Respondents who spoke to their regular physician in their primary home language were classified as having received language-concordant care, while all other respondents were classified as having received language-discordant care.Main outcomes and measuresMACEs within 5 years of survey completion.ResultsAmong the 124 583 patients included in this study, 114 239 (91.7%) spoke English, 4790 (3.8%) spoke French, 325 (0.3%) spoke an Indigenous language, and 5229 (4.2%) spoke an allophone (ie, other) language. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 63.7 (14.8) years; 57.1% of the patients reported their sex as female. Very few respondents who spoke an Indigenous language at home (<4.6%) received language-concordant care. For French-speaking patients, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of MACE between those who received language-concordant care and those who received language-discordant care (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.36). Allophone-speaking patients who received language-concordant care were 36% less likely to experience MACE (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80) compared with allophone-speaking patients who received language-discordant care.Conclusions and relevanceThis retrospective cohort study found large disparities in both access to language-concordant care and risk of MACEs. These findings suggest that language-concordant care could potentially improve the health of individuals in minority language communities.

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:BackgroundWhen patients and physicians speak the same language, it may improve the quality and safety of care delivered. We sought to determine whether patient-physician language concordance is associated with in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes among home care recipients who were admitted to hospital.MethodsWe conducted a population-based study of a retrospective cohort of 189 690 home care recipients who were admitted to hospital in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2018. We defined patient language (obtained from home care assessments) as English (Anglophone), French (Francophone) or other (allophone). We obtained physician language from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. We defined hospital admissions as language concordant when patients received more than 50% of their care from physicians who spoke the patients' primary language. We identified in-hospital (adverse events, length of stay, death) and post-discharge outcomes (emergency department visits, readmissions, death within 30 days of discharge). We used regression analyses to estimate the adjusted rate of mean and the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of each outcome, stratified by patient language, to assess the impact of language-concordant care within each linguistic group.ResultsAllophone patients who received language-concordant care had lower risk of adverse events (adjusted OR 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.43) and in-hospital death (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.66), as well as shorter stays in hospital (adjusted rate of mean 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.83) than allophone patients who received language-discordant care. Results were similar for Francophone patients, although the magnitude of the effect was smaller than for allophone patients. Language concordance or discordance of the hospital admission was not associated with significant differences in postdischarge outcomes.InterpretationPatients who received most of their care from physicians who spoke the patients' primary language had better in-hospital outcomes, suggesting that disparities across linguistic groups could be mitigated by providing patients with language-concordant care.

Project description:IntroductionAs the world's linguistic diversity continues to increase at an unprecedented rate, a growing proportion of patients will be at risk of experiencing language barriers in primary care settings. We sought to examine whether patient-family physician language concordance in a primary care setting is associated with lower rates of hospital-based healthcare utilisation and mortality.MethodsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 497 227 home care recipients living in Ontario, Canada. Patient language was obtained from home care assessments while physician language was obtained from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. We defined primary care as language concordant when patients and their rostered family physicians shared a mutually intelligible language, and we defined all other primary care as language discordant. The primary outcomes were Emergency Department (ED) visits, hospitalisations and death within 1 year of index home care assessment.ResultsCompared with non-English, non-French speakers who received language-discordant primary care, those who received language-concordant primary care experienced fewer ED visits (53.1% vs 57.5%; p<0.01), fewer hospitalisations (35.0% vs 37.6%; p<0.01) and less mortality (14.4% vs 16.6%; p<0.01) during the study period. In multivariable regression analyses, non-English, non-French speakers had lower risks of ED visits (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.94), hospitalisations (aHR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) and death (aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93) when they received language-concordant primary care. For francophones, the risk of experiencing an ED visit, a hospitalisation or death was not impacted by the language of their family physician.ConclusionsPatient-family physician language concordance is associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes in non-English and non-French speakers. Optimising the delivery of language-concordant care could potentially result in significant decreases in the use of acute healthcare services and mortality at the population level.

Project description:Objectives: Numerous recently published clinical care guidelines, including the 2017 American College of Physicians (ACP) Guideline for Low Back Pain (LBP), call for nonpharmacological approaches to pain management. However, little data exist regarding the extent to which these guidelines have been adopted by patients and medical doctors. The study objective was to determine patient-reported treatment recommendations by medical doctors for LBP and patient compliance with those recommendations. Design: This study used a cross-sectional web and mail survey. Settings/Location: The study was conducted among Gallup Panel members across the United States. Subjects: Survey participants included 5377 U.S. adults randomly selected among Gallup Panel members. Of those, 545 reported a visit to a medical doctor within the past year for low back pain and were asked a series of follow-up questions regarding treatment recommendations. Interventions: Participants were asked about medical doctor recommendations for both drug (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, and cortisone injections) and nondrug (self-care treatments, massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, and physical therapy) treatments. Outcome Measures: Participants were asked to indicate if their medical doctor recommended each drug and nondrug therapy for their LBP and if they had followed each of those treatment recommendations. Results: Ninety-six percent of patients who visited a medical doctor for LBP received a recommendation for one or more pain treatments, with 81% reporting that their medical doctor recommended both drug and nondrug therapies. Seventy-six percent of respondents were recommended acetaminophen or NSAIDs, 79% were recommended self-care treatments, 37% were recommended massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation, and 60% were recommended physical therapy. Nearly two-thirds of our sample reported that their doctor had recommended prescription medications, including opioids, benzodiazepines, Gabapentin, Neurontin, or cortisone injections. Reported adherence to treatment recommendations ranged from 68% for acupuncture to 94% for NSAIDs. Conclusions: One year after publication of the ACP's Guideline on LBP, patients report that medical doctors recommended both pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment approaches to patients with LBP. In the majority of cases, a combination of prescription medications and self-care were recommended, illustrating the need for additional research on the effectiveness of multi-modal treatment strategies. Patients reported that they were largely compliant with medical doctor recommendations, underscoring the influence that medical doctors have in directing patient care for LBP. These findings indicate that further work is also needed to explore the impact of personal experience, training, clinical evidence, sociocultural factors, and health plans on medical doctors therapeutic recommendations in the context of back pain.

Dataset Information

Impact of Physician-Patient Language Concordance on Patient Outcomes and Adherence to Clinical Chest Pain Recommendations.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Impact of Physician-Patient Language Concordance on Patient Outcomes and Adherence to Clinical Chest Pain Recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets