| Title |
The Impact of Language Barriers on Documentation of Informed Consent at a Hospital with On-Site Interpreter Services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-007-0359-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yael Schenker, Frances Wang, Sarah Jane Selig, Rita Ng, Alicia Fernandez |
| Abstract |
Informed consent is legally and ethically required before invasive non-emergent procedures. Language barriers make obtaining informed consent more complex. Determine the impact of language barriers on documentation of informed consent among patients in a teaching hospital with on-site interpreter services. Matched retrospective chart review study. Eligible Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) who received a thoracentesis, paracentesis, or lumbar puncture were matched with eligible English-speaking patients by procedure, hospital service, and date of procedure. Charts were reviewed for documentation of informed consent (IC), including a procedure note documenting an IC discussion and a signed consent form. For LEP patients, full documentation of informed consent also included evidence of interpretation, or a consent form in the patient's primary language. Seventy-four procedures in LEP patients were matched with 74 procedures in English speakers. Charts of English-speaking patients were more likely than those of LEP patients to contain full documentation of informed consent (53% vs 28%; odds ratio (OR): 2.81; 95% CI, 1.42-5.56; p = 0.003). Upon multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and service factors, English speakers remained more likely than LEP patients to have full documentation of informed consent (Adj OR: 3.10; 95% CI, 1.49-6.47; p = 0.003). When examining the components of informed consent, charts of English-speaking and LEP patients were similar in the proportion documenting a consent discussion; however, charts of English speakers were more likely to contain a signed consent form in any language (85% vs 70%, p = 0.03). Despite the availability of on-site professional interpreter services, hospitalized patients who do not speak English are less likely to have documentation of informed consent for common invasive procedures. Hospital quality initiatives should consider monitoring informed consent for LEP patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 2% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 204 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 15% |
| Researcher | 21 | 10% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 19% |
| Unknown | 39 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 80 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 15 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 9 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 48 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 21 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,735,774
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,363
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,619
of 78,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#11
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 78,174 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 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.