Quality of Serious Illness Communication with Hospitalized Limited English Proficient Patients: A Mixed Methods Study.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative medicine reports Pub Date : 2025-05-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1089/pmr.2025.0005
Laura M Holdsworth, Samantha M R Kling, Marcy Winget, Heather Z Mui, Donn W Garvert, Darlene Veruttipong, Briththa Seevaratnam, Sonia Harris, Winifred Teuteberg
{"title":"Quality of Serious Illness Communication with Hospitalized Limited English Proficient Patients: A Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Laura M Holdsworth, Samantha M R Kling, Marcy Winget, Heather Z Mui, Donn W Garvert, Darlene Veruttipong, Briththa Seevaratnam, Sonia Harris, Winifred Teuteberg","doi":"10.1089/pmr.2025.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Serious Illness Conversation Guide was developed to support high quality goals of care conversations with seriously ill patients; however, guide implementation for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) has not been studied. This evaluation aimed to explore serious illness conversations with hospitalized LEP patients, defined as those with a non-English language documented, from clinician and interpreter perspectives; and assess differences in documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) as a quality improvement effort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Parallel mixed methods evaluation including thematic analysis of observations and interviews with medical interpreters (<i>n</i> = 14), occupational therapists (<i>n</i> = 9), registered dietitians (<i>n</i> = 6), and resident physicians (<i>n</i> = 3) of a quaternary academic hospital in the United States. Comparison of EMR documentation for hospital admissions with English proficient (<i>N</i> = 7396) and LEP patients (<i>N</i> = 2326).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six themes characterized serious illness communication and guide use with LEP patients. As compared to other clinical encounters, both interpreters and clinicians perceived serious illness communication as unique. Both groups acknowledged that interpreters convey meaning, though being an effective voice of the clinician required advanced preparation of the interpreter, even when the guide was used. There were no differences in documentation between the groups (4.7% (345/7396) versus 5.4% (126/2326); <i>p</i> = 0.21).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Even when the guide is used, there may be differences in serious illness communication quality with LEP patients depending on how clinicians engage with the guide and interpreter preparation. The guide may be a method to enhance communication quality, but for LEP patients, requires the parallel implementation of workflows that support high-quality communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":74394,"journal":{"name":"Palliative medicine reports","volume":"6 1","pages":"282-290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12410327/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative medicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2025.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Serious Illness Conversation Guide was developed to support high quality goals of care conversations with seriously ill patients; however, guide implementation for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) has not been studied. This evaluation aimed to explore serious illness conversations with hospitalized LEP patients, defined as those with a non-English language documented, from clinician and interpreter perspectives; and assess differences in documentation in the electronic medical record (EMR) as a quality improvement effort.

Methods: Parallel mixed methods evaluation including thematic analysis of observations and interviews with medical interpreters (n = 14), occupational therapists (n = 9), registered dietitians (n = 6), and resident physicians (n = 3) of a quaternary academic hospital in the United States. Comparison of EMR documentation for hospital admissions with English proficient (N = 7396) and LEP patients (N = 2326).

Results: Six themes characterized serious illness communication and guide use with LEP patients. As compared to other clinical encounters, both interpreters and clinicians perceived serious illness communication as unique. Both groups acknowledged that interpreters convey meaning, though being an effective voice of the clinician required advanced preparation of the interpreter, even when the guide was used. There were no differences in documentation between the groups (4.7% (345/7396) versus 5.4% (126/2326); p = 0.21).

Conclusions: Even when the guide is used, there may be differences in serious illness communication quality with LEP patients depending on how clinicians engage with the guide and interpreter preparation. The guide may be a method to enhance communication quality, but for LEP patients, requires the parallel implementation of workflows that support high-quality communication.

住院有限英语熟练患者的重病沟通质量:一项混合方法研究。
背景:制定《重症对话指南》是为了支持与重症患者进行高质量护理对话的目标;然而,指南对英语水平有限的患者(LEP)的实施还没有研究。本评估旨在从临床医生和口译员的角度探讨与住院LEP患者(定义为非英语语言记录的患者)的严重疾病对话;并评估电子病历(EMR)文件中的差异,作为质量改进工作。方法:平行混合方法评估,包括对美国一家第四学术医院的医学口译员(n = 14)、职业治疗师(n = 9)、注册营养师(n = 6)和住院医师(n = 3)的观察结果进行专题分析和访谈。住院英语熟练患者(N = 7396)和LEP患者(N = 2326) EMR记录的比较结果:LEP患者大病沟通和指导使用的六个主题。与其他临床接触相比,口译员和临床医生都认为重症沟通是独特的。两组都承认口译员传达了意义,尽管作为临床医生的有效声音需要口译员的高级准备,即使在使用指南时也是如此。两组间的文献记录无差异(4.7% (345/7396)vs 5.4% (126/2326);P = 0.21)。结论:即使使用了指南,与LEP患者的严重疾病沟通质量也可能存在差异,这取决于临床医生如何参与指南和口译准备。该指南可能是一种提高通信质量的方法,但对于LEP患者,需要并行实现支持高质量通信的工作流程。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书