Languages other than English in a pediatric ED: Documentation, extended stays, and revisits

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE American Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.024
Mondira Ray MD , Andrew Capraro MD
{"title":"Languages other than English in a pediatric ED: Documentation, extended stays, and revisits","authors":"Mondira Ray MD ,&nbsp;Andrew Capraro MD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Given the increasing proportion of patients and caregivers who use languages other than English (LOE) at our institution and across the U.S, we evaluated key workflow and outcome measures in our emergency department (ED) for patients and caregivers who use LOE.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients and caregivers who presented to a free-standing urban pediatric facility. We used electronic health record data (EHR) and interpreter usage log data for our analysis of language documentation, length of stay, and ED revisits. We assessed ED revisits within 72-h using a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for whether a primary care provider (PCP) was listed in the EHR, whether discharge was close to or on the weekend, and insurance status. We restricted our analysis to low-acuity patient encounters (Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores of 4 and 5) to limit confounding factors related to higher ESI scores.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We found that one in five patients and caregivers who use LOE had incorrect documentation of their language needs in the EHR. Using interpreter usage data to most accurately capture encounters using LOE, we found that patient encounters using LOE had a 38-min longer length of stay (LOS) and twice the odds of a 72-h ED revisit compared to encounters using English.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>These results highlight the need for better language documentation and understanding of factors contributing to extended stays and increased revisits for pediatric patients and caregivers who use LOE.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675724004686","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Given the increasing proportion of patients and caregivers who use languages other than English (LOE) at our institution and across the U.S, we evaluated key workflow and outcome measures in our emergency department (ED) for patients and caregivers who use LOE.

Methods

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients and caregivers who presented to a free-standing urban pediatric facility. We used electronic health record data (EHR) and interpreter usage log data for our analysis of language documentation, length of stay, and ED revisits. We assessed ED revisits within 72-h using a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for whether a primary care provider (PCP) was listed in the EHR, whether discharge was close to or on the weekend, and insurance status. We restricted our analysis to low-acuity patient encounters (Emergency Severity Index (ESI) scores of 4 and 5) to limit confounding factors related to higher ESI scores.

Results

We found that one in five patients and caregivers who use LOE had incorrect documentation of their language needs in the EHR. Using interpreter usage data to most accurately capture encounters using LOE, we found that patient encounters using LOE had a 38-min longer length of stay (LOS) and twice the odds of a 72-h ED revisit compared to encounters using English.

Conclusion

These results highlight the need for better language documentation and understanding of factors contributing to extended stays and increased revisits for pediatric patients and caregivers who use LOE.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿科急诊室中英语以外的语言:文件记录、延长住院时间和再次就诊
目的鉴于本机构和全美使用非英语语言(LOE)的患者和护理人员的比例不断增加,我们对急诊科(ED)中使用非英语语言的患者和护理人员的主要工作流程和结果指标进行了评估。方法这是一项回顾性横断面研究,研究对象是在一家独立的城市儿科机构就诊的患者和护理人员。我们使用电子健康记录数据(EHR)和口译员使用记录数据来分析语言记录、住院时间和急诊室复诊情况。我们使用多变量逻辑回归模型对 72 小时内的急诊室复诊情况进行了评估,该模型对电子病历中是否列出了初级保健提供者 (PCP)、出院时间是否接近周末或在周末以及保险状况进行了调整。我们将分析范围限制在低急诊患者(急诊严重程度指数 (ESI) 评分为 4 分和 5 分),以限制与较高 ESI 评分相关的混杂因素。结果我们发现,每五名使用 LOE 的患者和护理人员中就有一人在 EHR 中记录了不正确的语言需求。我们发现,与使用英语的患者相比,使用 LOE 的患者的住院时间(LOS)延长了 38 分钟,72 小时 ED 复诊的几率增加了一倍。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.
期刊最新文献
Hybrid warfare tactics and novel injury patterns in the Beirut pager explosions. Successful recovery of vision following intravenous thrombolysis using low-dose alteplase in central retinal artery occlusion. Adenosine dose for supraventricular tachycardia. Comparative safety and efficacy of a hybrid intravenous and oral diltiazem protocol for acute rate control in the emergency department. Interfacial plane block: A new technique or "old wine in a new bottle"?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1