Comparing acute hospital outcomes for people with post-stroke aphasia who do and do not require an interpreter.

Abstract

Background: People with communication differences are known to have poorer hospital outcomes than their peers. However, the combined impact of aphasia and cultural/linguistic differences on care and outcomes after stroke remains unknown.

Objectives: To investigate the association between cultural/linguistic differences, defined as those requiring an interpreter, and the provision of acute evidence-based stroke care and in-hospital outcomes for people with aphasia.

Methods: Cross-sectional, observational data collected in the Stroke Foundation National Audit of Acute Services (2017, 2019, 2021) were used. Multivariable regression models compared evidence-based care and in-hospital outcomes (e.g., length of stay) by interpreter status. Models were adjusted for sex, hospital location, stroke type and severity, with clustering by hospital.

Results: Among 3122 people with aphasia (median age 78, 49% female) from 126 hospitals, 193 (6%) required an interpreter (median age 78, 55% female). Compared to people with aphasia not requiring an interpreter, those requiring an interpreter had similar care access but less often had their mood assessed (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32, 0.76), were more likely to have physiotherapy assessments (96% vs 90% p = 0.011) and carer training (OR 4.83, 95% CI 1.70, 13.70), had a 2 day longer median length of stay (8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.003), and were less likely to be independent on discharge (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33, 0.89).

Conclusions: Some differences exist in the management and outcomes for people with post-stroke aphasia who require an interpreter. Further research to explore their needs and the practical issues underpinning their clinical care pathways is required.