Maichou Lor, Angie Li, Roger Brown, Matthew P Swedlund, John G Hawkins, Evan T Nolander, Betty Chewning
{"title":"改善英语水平有限的苗族患者、医疗翻译和初级医疗服务提供者之间的疼痛沟通:试点研究。","authors":"Maichou Lor, Angie Li, Roger Brown, Matthew P Swedlund, John G Hawkins, Evan T Nolander, Betty Chewning","doi":"10.1002/nur.22363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This pilot study assessed the feasibility of implementing a pain assessment information visualization (InfoViz) tool to address cultural and language barriers among limited English proficiency (LEP) Hmong patients in primary care. We used a static group comparison design to collect data from 20 patient, interpreter, and provider triads under usual care (i.e., interpreter using verbal pain descriptions), followed by another 20 triads under the intervention (i.e., interpreter using verbal pain descriptions and the InfoViz tool). Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, InfoViz tool completion, acceptability, and fidelity. We also assessed mutual understanding (MU) and pain electronic health record (EHR) documentation. Descriptive data were calculated and thematic analysis was conducted. Thirty-six LEP Hmong patients (n = 29 female, mean age = 59.03), 27 providers (n = 15 female), and four interpreters participated in this study. The patient recruitment rate was 18% while the retention rate was 81%. Interpreter recruitment rate was 80%, and 75% for retention rate. The intervention fidelity mean score was 83%. In the intervention condition, patient-provider MU of pain severity improved by 30%, coupled with a 28% increase in pain severity EHR documentation compared to usual care. While communication of pain quality did not improve, there was a higher mean number of pain descriptors (3.31 in the intervention vs. 1.79 in usual care) in EHR documentation. All participants had a positive experience with the tool, reporting it as valuable with 100% completeness of all tools. Findings revealed the tool was acceptable and feasible to use among LEP patients-interpreters-providers, providing support for an efficacy study.</p>","PeriodicalId":54492,"journal":{"name":"Research in Nursing & Health","volume":" ","pages":"289-301"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11079862/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving pain communication between limited English-speaking Hmong patients, medical interpreters, and health care providers in primary care: A pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Maichou Lor, Angie Li, Roger Brown, Matthew P Swedlund, John G Hawkins, Evan T Nolander, Betty Chewning\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/nur.22363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This pilot study assessed the feasibility of implementing a pain assessment information visualization (InfoViz) tool to address cultural and language barriers among limited English proficiency (LEP) Hmong patients in primary care. We used a static group comparison design to collect data from 20 patient, interpreter, and provider triads under usual care (i.e., interpreter using verbal pain descriptions), followed by another 20 triads under the intervention (i.e., interpreter using verbal pain descriptions and the InfoViz tool). Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, InfoViz tool completion, acceptability, and fidelity. We also assessed mutual understanding (MU) and pain electronic health record (EHR) documentation. Descriptive data were calculated and thematic analysis was conducted. Thirty-six LEP Hmong patients (n = 29 female, mean age = 59.03), 27 providers (n = 15 female), and four interpreters participated in this study. The patient recruitment rate was 18% while the retention rate was 81%. Interpreter recruitment rate was 80%, and 75% for retention rate. The intervention fidelity mean score was 83%. In the intervention condition, patient-provider MU of pain severity improved by 30%, coupled with a 28% increase in pain severity EHR documentation compared to usual care. While communication of pain quality did not improve, there was a higher mean number of pain descriptors (3.31 in the intervention vs. 1.79 in usual care) in EHR documentation. All participants had a positive experience with the tool, reporting it as valuable with 100% completeness of all tools. Findings revealed the tool was acceptable and feasible to use among LEP patients-interpreters-providers, providing support for an efficacy study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Nursing & Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"289-301\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11079862/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Nursing & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22363\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Nursing & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22363","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Improving pain communication between limited English-speaking Hmong patients, medical interpreters, and health care providers in primary care: A pilot study.
This pilot study assessed the feasibility of implementing a pain assessment information visualization (InfoViz) tool to address cultural and language barriers among limited English proficiency (LEP) Hmong patients in primary care. We used a static group comparison design to collect data from 20 patient, interpreter, and provider triads under usual care (i.e., interpreter using verbal pain descriptions), followed by another 20 triads under the intervention (i.e., interpreter using verbal pain descriptions and the InfoViz tool). Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, InfoViz tool completion, acceptability, and fidelity. We also assessed mutual understanding (MU) and pain electronic health record (EHR) documentation. Descriptive data were calculated and thematic analysis was conducted. Thirty-six LEP Hmong patients (n = 29 female, mean age = 59.03), 27 providers (n = 15 female), and four interpreters participated in this study. The patient recruitment rate was 18% while the retention rate was 81%. Interpreter recruitment rate was 80%, and 75% for retention rate. The intervention fidelity mean score was 83%. In the intervention condition, patient-provider MU of pain severity improved by 30%, coupled with a 28% increase in pain severity EHR documentation compared to usual care. While communication of pain quality did not improve, there was a higher mean number of pain descriptors (3.31 in the intervention vs. 1.79 in usual care) in EHR documentation. All participants had a positive experience with the tool, reporting it as valuable with 100% completeness of all tools. Findings revealed the tool was acceptable and feasible to use among LEP patients-interpreters-providers, providing support for an efficacy study.
期刊介绍:
Research in Nursing & Health ( RINAH ) is a peer-reviewed general research journal devoted to publication of a wide range of research that will inform the practice of nursing and other health disciplines. The editors invite reports of research describing problems and testing interventions related to health phenomena, health care and self-care, clinical organization and administration; and the testing of research findings in practice. Research protocols are considered if funded in a peer-reviewed process by an agency external to the authors’ home institution and if the work is in progress. Papers on research methods and techniques are appropriate if they go beyond what is already generally available in the literature and include description of successful use of the method. Theory papers are accepted if each proposition is supported by research evidence. Systematic reviews of the literature are reviewed if PRISMA guidelines are followed. Letters to the editor commenting on published articles are welcome.