The Utility of Dot Phrases and SmartPhrases in Improving Physician Documentation of Interpreter Use.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Katrin Jaradeh, Elaine Hsiang, Malini K Singh, Christopher R Peabody, Steven Straube
{"title":"The Utility of Dot Phrases and SmartPhrases in Improving Physician Documentation of Interpreter Use.","authors":"Katrin Jaradeh, Elaine Hsiang, Malini K Singh, Christopher R Peabody, Steven Straube","doi":"10.5811/westjem.18352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience significant healthcare disparities. Clinicians are responsible for using and documenting their use of certified interpreters for patient encounters when appropriate. However, the data on interpreter use documentation in the emergency department (ED) is limited and variable. We sought to assess the effects of dot phrase and SmartPhrase implementation in an adult ED on the rates of documentation of interpreter use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an anonymous survey asking emergency clinicians to self-report documentation of interpreter use. We also retrospectively reviewed documentation of interpreter- services use in ED charts at three time points: 1) pre-intervention baseline; 2) post-implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase shortcut; and 3) post-implementation of a SmartPhrase.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most emergency clinicians reported using an interpreter \"almost always\" or \"often.\" Our manual audit revealed that at baseline, interpreter use was documented in 35% of the initial clinician note, 4% of reassessments, and 0% of procedure notes; 52% of discharge instructions were written in the patients' preferred languages. After implementation of the dot phrase and SmartPhrase, respectively, rates of interpreter-use documentation improved to 43% and 97% of initial clinician notes, 9% and 6% of reassessments, and 5% and 35% of procedure notes, with 62% and 64% of discharge instructions written in the patients' preferred languages.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a discrepancy between reported rates of interpreter use and interpreter-use documentation rates. The latter increased with the implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase and then a SmartPhrase built into the notes. Ensuring accurate documentation of interpreter use is an impactful step in language equity for LEP patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 3","pages":"345-349"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11112665/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.18352","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience significant healthcare disparities. Clinicians are responsible for using and documenting their use of certified interpreters for patient encounters when appropriate. However, the data on interpreter use documentation in the emergency department (ED) is limited and variable. We sought to assess the effects of dot phrase and SmartPhrase implementation in an adult ED on the rates of documentation of interpreter use.

Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey asking emergency clinicians to self-report documentation of interpreter use. We also retrospectively reviewed documentation of interpreter- services use in ED charts at three time points: 1) pre-intervention baseline; 2) post-implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase shortcut; and 3) post-implementation of a SmartPhrase.

Results: Most emergency clinicians reported using an interpreter "almost always" or "often." Our manual audit revealed that at baseline, interpreter use was documented in 35% of the initial clinician note, 4% of reassessments, and 0% of procedure notes; 52% of discharge instructions were written in the patients' preferred languages. After implementation of the dot phrase and SmartPhrase, respectively, rates of interpreter-use documentation improved to 43% and 97% of initial clinician notes, 9% and 6% of reassessments, and 5% and 35% of procedure notes, with 62% and 64% of discharge instructions written in the patients' preferred languages.

Conclusion: There was a discrepancy between reported rates of interpreter use and interpreter-use documentation rates. The latter increased with the implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase and then a SmartPhrase built into the notes. Ensuring accurate documentation of interpreter use is an impactful step in language equity for LEP patients.

点式短语和智能短语在改进医生记录口译员使用情况方面的实用性。
背景:英语能力有限 (LEP) 的患者在医疗保健方面会遇到很大的差异。临床医生有责任在患者就诊时酌情使用经认证的口译人员,并将使用情况记录在案。然而,有关急诊科(ED)口译员使用记录的数据有限且不稳定。我们试图评估在成人急诊室实施点式短语和智能短语对口译员使用记录率的影响:我们进行了一项匿名调查,要求急诊临床医生自我报告口译员使用记录。我们还回顾性地查看了急诊室病历中三个时间点的口译服务使用记录:1)干预前基线;2)实施临床医生驱动的点式短语快捷方式后;3)实施智能短语后:结果:大多数急诊医生表示 "几乎总是 "或 "经常 "使用口译员。我们的人工审核显示,在基线阶段,35% 的初始临床医师记录、4% 的重新评估记录和 0% 的手术记录中都记录了口译员的使用情况;52% 的出院指导是以患者首选的语言书写的。在使用点式短语和智能短语后,译员使用记录率分别提高到了43%和97%的初始临床医生记录、9%和6%的重新评估记录、5%和35%的手术记录,62%和64%的出院指导以患者首选语言书写:结论:报告的口译员使用率与口译员使用记录率之间存在差异。随着临床医生主导的点式短语和智能短语在笔记中的应用,后者的使用率有所提高。确保准确记录口译员的使用情况是促进 LEP 患者语言公平的重要一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信