Pilot study of provider adherence to language services for surgical patients with limited English proficiency

Abstract results

Each result the abstract reports — is it captured as evidence?

• Interpreter use was documented for 62.2 ​% of patients and 30 ​% received language concordant documentation.

  Covered Promote Not a result

• Interpreter service utilization and language concordant documentation were not significantly associated with LOS, ED visits, hospital readmissions, or surgeon follow-up.

  Covered Promote Not a result

• Language interpreter services are underutilized for LEP patients.

  Covered Promote Not a result

• These findings suggest the need for further investigation into the barriers to providing this service for patients during a time of critical decision-making.

  Covered Promote Not a result

Tables & figures

Map each object to the evidence it grounds (one object can ground several), add anything missed, or flag a gap.

• 

  Table 1

  p3
  • Documented interpreter use was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Interpreter use was documented for only 62% of LEP cholecystectomy patients despite the Section 1557 mandate
  • Language-concordant documentation was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Only 31% of LEP cholecystectomy patients received language-concordant documentation
  Add evidence Flag gap Nothing to capture

• Table 2

  p4
  • Documented interpreter use was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Interpreter use was documented for only 62% of LEP cholecystectomy patients despite the Section 1557 mandate
  • Language-concordant documentation was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Only 31% of LEP cholecystectomy patients received language-concordant documentation
  Add evidence Flag gap Nothing to capture
• 

  Table 3

  p4
  • Documented interpreter use was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Interpreter use was documented for only 62% of LEP cholecystectomy patients despite the Section 1557 mandate
  • Language-concordant documentation was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Only 31% of LEP cholecystectomy patients received language-concordant documentation
  Add evidence Flag gap Nothing to capture

• Table 4 — (continued)

  p5
  • Documented interpreter use was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Interpreter use was documented for only 62% of LEP cholecystectomy patients despite the Section 1557 mandate
  • Language-concordant documentation was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Only 31% of LEP cholecystectomy patients received language-concordant documentation
  Add evidence Flag gap Nothing to capture
• 

  Table 5

  p5
  • Documented interpreter use was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Interpreter use was documented for only 62% of LEP cholecystectomy patients despite the Section 1557 mandate
  • Language-concordant documentation was not significantly associated with LOS, ED revisits, readmission, or surgical follow-up after cholecystectomy
  • Only 31% of LEP cholecystectomy patients received language-concordant documentation
  Add evidence Flag gap Nothing to capture