↓ Skip to main content

Increased Access to Professional Interpreters in the Hospital Improves Informed Consent for Patients with Limited English Proficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
Title
Increased Access to Professional Interpreters in the Hospital Improves Informed Consent for Patients with Limited English Proficiency
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-3983-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan S. Lee, Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, Steven E. Gregorich, Michael H. Crawford, Adrienne Green, Jennifer Livaudais-Toman, Leah S. Karliner

Abstract

Language barriers disrupt communication and impede informed consent for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) undergoing healthcare procedures. Effective interventions for this disparity remain unclear. Assess the impact of a bedside interpreter phone system intervention on informed consent for patients with LEP and compare outcomes to those of English speakers. Prospective, pre-post intervention implementation study using propensity analysis. Hospitalized patients undergoing invasive procedures on the cardiovascular, general surgery or orthopedic surgery floors. Installation of dual-handset interpreter phones at every bedside enabling 24-h immediate access to professional interpreters. Primary predictor: pre- vs. post-implementation group; secondary predictor: post-implementation patients with LEP vs. English speakers. Primary outcomes: three central informed consent elements, patient-reported understanding of the (1) reasons for and (2) risks of the procedure and (3) having had all questions answered. We considered consent adequately informed when all three elements were met. We enrolled 152 Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients with LEP (84 pre- and 68 post-implementation) and 86 English speakers. Post-implementation (vs. pre-implementation) patients with LEP were more likely to meet criteria for adequately informed consent (54% vs. 29%, p = 0.001) and, after propensity score adjustment, had significantly higher odds of adequately informed consent (AOR 2.56; 95% CI, 1.15-5.72) as well as of each consent element individually. However, compared to post-implementation English speakers, post-implementation patients with LEP had significantly lower adjusted odds of adequately informed consent (AOR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91). A bedside interpreter phone system intervention to increase rapid access to professional interpreters was associated with improvements in patient-reported informed consent and should be considered by hospitals seeking to improve care for patients with LEP; however, these improvements did not eliminate the language-based disparity. Additional clinician educational interventions and more language-concordant care may be necessary for informed consent to equal that for English speakers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 172 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 12%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Postgraduate 17 10%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 52 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 17%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 64 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2021.
All research outputs
#901,528
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#734
of 8,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,590
of 426,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#12
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.