LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY, CARDIOVASCULAR RISK FACTORS, CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND IN-HOSPITAL COVID-19 OUTCOME
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9982886 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience lower quality end-of-life (EOL) care. This inequity may have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: Compare health care utilization, EOL, and palliative care outcomes between COVID-19 decedents with and without LEP during the pandemic's first wave in Massachusetts. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients who died from COVID-19 between February 18, 2020 and May 18, 2020 at two academic and four community hospitals within a greater Boston health care system. We performed multivariable regression adjusting for patient sociodemographic variables and hospital characteristics. Primary outcome was place of death (intensive care unit [ICU] vs. non-ICU). Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU length of stay and time to initial palliative care consultation. Results: Among 337 patients, 89 (26.4%) had LEP and 248 (73.6%) were English proficient. Patients with LEP were less often white (24 [27.0%] vs. 193 [77.8%]; p < 0.001); were more often Hispanic or Latinx (40 [45.0%] vs. 13 [5.2%]; p < 0.001); and less often had a medical order for life-sustaining treatment (MOLST) on admission (15 [16.9%] vs. 120 [48.4%]; p < 0.001) versus patients with English proficiency. In the multivariable analyses, LEP was not independently associated with ICU death, ICU length of stay, or time to palliative care consultation, but was independently associated with increased hospital length of stay (mean difference 4.12 days; 95% CI, 1.72-6.53; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Inpatient COVID-19 decedents with LEP were not at increased risk of an ICU death, but were associated with an increased hospital length of stay versus inpatient COVID-19 decedents with English proficiency.
| S-EPMC9836680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo conduct comparative cost analysis of hospital care for critically ill patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) versus patients with English proficiency (controls).Patients and methodsWe conducted a historical cohort study using propensity matching at Mayo Clinic Rochester, a quaternary care academic center. We included hospitalized patients who had at least one admission to ICU during a 10-year period between 1/1/2008-12/31/2017.ResultsDue to substantial differences in baseline characteristics of the groups, propensity matching for the covariates age, sex, race, ethnicity, APACHE 3 score, and Charlson Comorbidity score was used, and we achieved the intended balance. The final cohort included 80,404 patients, 4,246 with LEP and 76,158 controls. Patients with LEP had higher costs during hospital admission to discharge, with a mean cost difference of $3861 (95% CI $822 to $6900, p = 0.013) and also higher costs during index ICU admission to hospital discharge, with a mean cost difference of $3166 (95% CI $231 to $6101, p = 0.035). A propensity matched cohort including only those that survived showed those with LEP had significantly greater mean costs for all outcomes. Sensitivity analysis revealed that international patients with LEP had significantly greater overall hospital costs of $9,240 than patients with LEP who resided in the US (95% CI $3341 to $15,140, p = 0.002).ConclusionThis is the first study to demonstrate significantly higher costs for patients with LEP experiencing a critical illness. The causes for this may be increased healthcare utilization secondary to communication deficiencies that impede timely decision making about care.
| S-EPMC10132690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited English proficiency (LEP) is common among hospitalized patients and may impact care. We synthesized the literature comparing clinical outcomes after in-hospital care for English-proficient(EP) versus LEP patients.MethodsThis systematic review searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception through June 7, 2020, to identify research investigating clinical outcomes in patients receiving hospital-based care (in the emergency department, inpatient ward, surgical/procedural suite, or intensive care unit) that compared patients with LEP to an EP group. We assessed mortality, length of stay (LOS), readmissions/revisits, and complications. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsTwenty-six studies met eligibility criteria. Study settings and populations were heterogeneous. Determination of primary language varied; a majority of studies (16/26) used patient self-report directly or via hospital records. Of 16 studies examining LEP and all-cause mortality, 13 found no significant association. Of 17 studies measuring LOS, 9 found no difference, 4 found longer LOS, 3 found shorter LOS, and 1 had mixed LOS results among patients with LEP. Several investigations suggested that LOS differences may be mediated at the hospital level. Nine studies evaluated inpatient readmissions. Among patients with LEP, there was evidence for increased readmissions in the setting of chronic medical conditions such as heart failure, but no evidence for increased readmissions among cohorts undergoing surgeries/procedures or with acute medical conditions. Five studies evaluated complications or harm related to a hospitalization, and no differences were found between language groups.DiscussionThe research community lacks a standardized definition of LEP. Most studies did not find an association between English proficiency and mortality or complications. LOS findings were mixed and may be influenced at the hospital level. Differences in readmissions by language were concentrated in chronic medical conditions. Given the paucity of studies examining LEP populations, additional research is imperative.Prospero registration numberCRD42020143477.
| S-EPMC9198156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe unprecedented use of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to examine its uptake among individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP).ObjectiveTo assess telemedicine use among nonelderly adults with LEP and the association between use of telehealth and emergency department (ED) and hospital visits.DesignCross-sectional study using the National Health Interview Survey (July 2020-December 2021) PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18-64 years), with LEP (N=1488) or English proficiency (EP) (N=25,873) MAIN MEASURES: Telemedicine, ED visits, and hospital visits in the past 12 months. We used multivariate logistic regression to assess (1) the association of English proficiency on having telemedicine visits; and (2) the association of English proficiency and telemedicine visits on having ED and hospital visits.Key resultsBetween July 2020 and December 2021, 22% of adults with LEP had a telemedicine visit compared to 35% of adults with EP. After controlling for predisposing, enabling, and need factors, adults with LEP had 20% lower odds of having a telemedicine visit than adults with EP (p=0.02). While English proficiency was not associated with ED or hospital visits during this time, adults with telemedicine visits had significantly greater odds of having any ED (aOR: 1.80, p<0.001) and hospital visits (aOR: 2.03, p<0.001) in the past 12 months.ConclusionsWhile telemedicine use increased overall during the COVID-19 pandemic, its use remained much less likely among adults with LEP. Interventions targeting structural barriers are needed to address disparities in access to telemedicine. More research is needed to understand the relationship between English proficiency, telemedicine visits, and downstream ED and hospital visits.
| S-EPMC10713935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited English proficiency (LEP) is associated with poor health status and worse outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine disparities in hypertension between National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) respondents with LEP versus adequate English proficiency.DesignRetrospective analysis of multi-year survey data.ParticipantsAdults 18 years of age and older who participated in the NHANES survey during the period 2003-2012.Main measuresWe defined participants with LEP as anyone who completed the NHANES survey in a language other than English or with the support of an interpreter. Using logistic regression, we estimated the odds ratio for undiagnosed or uncontrolled hypertension (systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 90 mmHg) among LEP participants relative to those with adequate English proficiency. We adjusted for sociodemographic, acculturation-related, and hypertension-related variables.Key resultsFourteen percent (n = 3,269) of the participants had limited English proficiency: 12.4% (n = 2906) used a Spanish questionnaire and 1.6% (n = 363) used an interpreter to complete the survey in another language. Those with LEP had higher odds of elevated blood pressure on physical examination (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.47 [1.07-2.03]). This finding persisted among participants using an interpreter (AOR = 1.88 [1.15-3.06]) but not among those using the Spanish questionnaire (AOR = 1.32 [0.98-1.80]). In a subgroup analysis, we found that the majority of uncontrolled hypertension was concentrated among individuals with a known diagnosis of hypertension (AOR = 1.80 [1.16-2.81]) rather than those with undiagnosed hypertension (AOR = 1.14 [0.74-1.75]). Interpreter use was associated with increased odds of uncontrolled hypertension, especially among patients who were not being medically managed for hypertension (AOR = 6.56 [1.30-33.12]).ConclusionsIn a nationally representative sample, participants with LEP were more likely to have poorly controlled hypertension than those with adequate English proficiency. LEP is an important driver of disparities in hypertension management and outcomes.
| S-EPMC5442015 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformed consent is important for limited English proficient (LEP) patients undergoing surgery, as many surgical procedures are complicated, making patient comprehension difficult even without language barriers. The study objectives were to (1) understand surgeons' preoperative consenting process with LEP patients, (2) examine how surgeons self assess their non-English language proficiency levels using a standardized scale, and (3) identify the relationship between self assessed non-English language proficiency and surgeons' self-reported use of interpreters during preoperative informed consent.Materials and methodsA thirty-two item survey assessing surgeons' reported preoperative informed consent process, with questions related to demographics, level of medical training, non-English language skills and their clinical use, language learning experiences, and hypothetical scenarios with LEP patients.ResultsSurgeons who were not fluent in non-English languages reported they often used those limited skills to obtain informed consent from their LEP patients. Many surgeons reported relying on bilingual hospital staff members, family members, and/or minors to serve as ad-hoc interpreters when obtaining informed consent. If a professional interpreter was not available in a timely manner, surgeons more frequently reported using ad-hoc interpreters or their own nonfluent language skills. Surgeons reported deferring to patient and family preferences when deciding whether to use professional interpreters and applied different thresholds for different clinical scenarios when deciding whether to use professional interpreters.ConclusionsSurgeons reported relying on their own non-English language skills, bilingual staff, and family and friends of patients to obtain informed consent from LEP patients, suggesting that further understanding of barriers to professional interpreter use is needed.
| S-EPMC4691361 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceOften electronic tools are built with English proficient (EP) patients in mind. Cancer patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience gaps in care and are at risk for excess toxic effects if they are unable to effectively communicate with their care team.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether electronic patient-reported outcome tools (ePROs) built to improve health outcomes for EP patients might also be acceptable for LEP patients in the context of oral cancer-directed therapies (OCDT).Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study was conducted at a single National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. In 2019, English-speaking and Spanish-speaking LEP patients with cancer receiving oral chemotherapies were recruited to participate in a qualitative focus group examining patient attitudes toward ePROs and electronic tools that are used to manage adherence and symptoms related to oral therapies. Six focus groups were held for EP patients and 1 for Spanish-speaking LEP patients. LEP was defined as patients who self-identified as needing an interpreter to navigate the health care system. Data analysis was performed April through June of 2019.ExposuresEnrolled patients participated in a focus group lasting approximately 90 minutes.Main outcomes and measuresThe perspectives of patients with cancer treated with oral chemotherapies on integrating ePROs into their care management.ResultsAmong the 46 participants included in the study, 46 (100%) were White, 10 (22%) were Latinx Spanish-speaking, 43 (93%) were female, and 37 (80%) were aged at least 50 years or older. Among the 6 focus groups with 6 to 8 EP patients (ranging from 6 to 8 participants) and 1 focus group with 10 Spanish-speaking LEP patients, this qualitative study found that EP and LEP patients had different levels of acceptability of using technology and ePRO tools to manage their OCDT. EP patients felt generally positive toward OCDT and were not generally interested in using electronic tools to manage their care. LEP patients generally disliked OCDT and welcomed the use of technology for health management, particularly when addressing gaps in symptom management by their oncology clinicians.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough most electronic interventions target EP patients, these findings reveal the willingness of LEP patients to participate in technology-based interventions. Expanding ePROs to LEP patients may help to manage gaps in communication about treatment and potential adverse events because of the willingness of LEP patients to use ePRO tools to manage their health. This qualitative assessment is a strategic step in determining the resources needed to narrow the digital health gap and extend the value of PROs to the LEP oncology population.
| S-EPMC9308052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Latinos, there were disparities in vaccination, especially during the early phase of COVID-19 immunization rollout.MethodsLeveraging a community-academic partnership established to expand access to SARS-CoV2 testing, we implemented community vaccination clinics with multifaceted outreach strategies and flexible appointments for limited English proficiency Latinos.ResultsBetween February 26 and May 7 2021, 2250 individuals received the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination during 18 free community events. Among them, 92.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.2%-93.4%) self-identified as Hispanic, 88.7% (95% CI, 87.2%-89.9%) were limited English proficiency Spanish speakers, 23.1% (95% CI, 20.9%-25.2%) reported prior COVID-19 infection, 19.4% (95% CI, 16.9%-22.25%) had a body mass index of more than 35, 35.0% (95% CI, 32.2%-37.8%) had cardiovascular disease, and 21.6% (95% CI, 19.2%-24.0%) had diabetes. The timely second-dose completion rate was high (98.7%; 95% CI, 97.6%-99.2%) and did not vary by outreach method.ConclusionA free community-based vaccination initiative expanded access for Latinos with limited English proficiency at high risk for COVID-19 during the early phase of the immunization program in the US.
| S-EPMC9528932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople with limited English proficiency (LEP) face greater barriers to accessing medical care than those who are English proficient (EP). Language-related differences in the use of outpatient care across the full spectrum of physician specialties have not been studied.ObjectiveTo compare outpatient visit rates to physicians in 28 specialties by people with LEP vs EP.DesignMultivariable negative binomial regression analysis of nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (pooled 2013-2018) with adjustment for age, sex, and self-reported health status.Participants149,611 survey respondents aged 18 and older.ExposureLEP, defined as taking the survey in a language other than English.Main measuresAnnual per capita adjusted visit rate ratios (ARRs) comparing visit rates by LEP and EP persons to individual specialties, and to three categories of specialties: (1) primary care (internal or family medicine, geriatrics, general practice, or obstetrics/gynecology), (2) medical-subspecialties, or (3) surgical specialties.Key resultsPatients with LEP were underrepresented in 26 of 28 specialties. Disparities were particularly large for the following: pulmonology (ARR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.35), orthopedics (ARR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.40), otolaryngology (ARR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59), and psychiatry (ARR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58). Among individuals with several specific common chronic conditions, LEP-EP disparities in visits to specialties in those conditions generally persisted. Disparities were larger for medical subspecialties (ARR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.46) and surgical specialties (ARR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.50) than for primary care (ARR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.79).ConclusionsPatients with LEP are underrepresented in most outpatient specialty practices, particularly medical subspecialties and surgical specialties. Our findings highlight the need to remove language barriers to physician services in order to ensure access to the full spectrum of outpatient specialty care for people with LEP.
| S-EPMC9708984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited English proficiency (LEP) has been implicated in poor health outcomes. Sepsis is a frequently fatal syndrome that is commonly encountered in hospital medicine. The impact of LEP on sepsis mortality is not currently known.ObjectiveTo determine the association between LEP and sepsis mortality.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting800-bed, tertiary care, academic medical center.PatientsElectronic health record data were obtained for adults admitted to the hospital with sepsis between June 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016.MeasurementsThe primary predictor was LEP. Patients were defined as having LEP if their self-reported primary language was anything other than English and interpreter services were required during hospitalization. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Mortality was compared across races stratified by LEP using chi-squared tests of significance. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to investigate the association between mortality, race, and LEP, adjusting for baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and illness severity.ResultsAmong 8,974 patients with sepsis, we found that 1 in 5 had LEP, 62% of whom were Asian. LEP was highly associated with death across all races except those identifying as Black and Latino. LEP was associated with a 31% increased odds of mortality after adjusting for illness severity, comorbidities, and other baseline characteristics, including race (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06-1.63, P = .02).ConclusionsIn a single-center study of patients hospitalized with sepsis, LEP was associated with mortality across nearly all races. This is a novel finding that will require further exploration into the causal nature of this association.
| S-EPMC7064297 | biostudies-literature