Developing an audio-based communication tool for NICU discharge of Latino families with limited English proficiency

Building clinician-parent partnerships to improve care for chronically critically Ill children: A pilot project

OBJECTIVE

Multicenter pilot to assess feasibility, acceptability, and educational value of videos for families and clinicians regarding unique inpatient challenges of pediatric chronic critical illness.

METHODS

Videos were developed for 3 hospitalization timepoints: 1) chronic critical illness diagnosis, 2) transfers, 3) discharge. Parents of hospitalized children, and interdisciplinary clinicians, were recruited to watch videos and complete surveys.

RESULTS

33 parents (16 English-speaking, 17 Spanish-speaking) and 34 clinicians participated. Enrollment was better for families than clinicians (78% vs. 43%). Video acceptability was high: families and clinicians endorsed verisimilitude of depicted hospitalization challenges for chronic critical illness. All families felt the videos would help other families, all clinicians felt they would help other clinicians. Families gained expectations for the hospital course, discovered resources for hospitalization challenges, and learned there are other families in similar situations. Clinicians learned to recognize chronic critical illness, and how families experience hospitalizations, transfers, and discharges.

CONCLUSION

Educational videos about pediatric chronic critical illness were overall feasible, acceptable, and educational for hospitalized families and clinicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Just-in-time hospital education about pediatric chronic critical illness is valuable to families and clinicians; next steps are to assess potential to reduce gaps in care of children with chronic critical illness.

The Impact of Standardized Recovery Pathways on Language Barriers and Inpatient Pain Management

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Inpatient postoperative care is reliant upon clear, open communication between providers and patient-families, and thus is particularly vulnerable to disparities when discordant languages exist. It is not yet understood how standardized postoperative protocols may mitigate disparities related to language discordance.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study among adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion at a tertiary care children's hospital in Bronx, New York after implementation of a postoperative pathway in 2017. Outcomes reliant upon communication between patient-families and providers were measured, including measures of pain management (number and type of pain medications requested, daily pain assessments, total opioids consumed), as well as outpatient pain scores.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients were included (39 language other than English [LOE]). Between patient cohorts, there were no significant differences in demographic or operative characteristics. On univariate analyses, LOE patients were more likely to be given a basal dosing of patient-controlled analgesia or additional boluses (26% vs 12%, P = .03), consumed 0.53 fewer benzodiazepine medications per day (P = .01), and were more likely to have pain at outpatient follow-up (67% vs 43%, P = .03). On multivariate analyses, LOE patients were more likely to be placed on basally dosed or receive additional boluses of patient-controlled analgesia (odds ratio 3.19, 95% confidence interval 1.15-8.85).

CONCLUSIONS

As standardized pathways become more common in health care, it is critical to monitor for components of these protocols that may be vulnerable to language-related disparities, such as therapies reliant on symptom description and outpatient follow-up.

Association of Patient and Family Reports of Hospital Safety Climate With Language Proficiency in the US

IMPORTANCE

Patients with language barriers have a higher risk of experiencing hospital safety events. This study hypothesized that language barriers would be associated with poorer perceptions of hospital safety climate relating to communication openness.

OBJECTIVE

To examine disparities in reported hospital safety climate by language proficiency in a cohort of hospitalized children and their families.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study conducted from April 29, 2019, through March 1, 2020, included pediatric patients and parents or caregivers of hospitalized children at general and subspecialty units at 21 US hospitals. Randomly selected Arabic-, Chinese-, English-, and Spanish-speaking hospitalized patients and families were approached before hospital discharge and were included in the analysis if they provided both language proficiency and health literacy data. Participants self-rated language proficiency via surveys. Limited English proficiency was defined as an answer of anything other than "very well" to the question "how well do you speak English?"

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes were top-box (top most; eg, strongly agree) 5-point Likert scale ratings for 3 Children's Hospital Safety Climate Questionnaire communication openness items: (1) freely speaking up if you see something that may negatively affect care (top-box response: strongly agree), (2) questioning decisions or actions of health care providers (top-box response: strongly agree), and (3) being afraid to ask questions when something does not seem right (top-box response: strongly disagree [reverse-coded item]). Covariates included health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics. Logistic regression was used with generalized estimating equations to control for clustering by site to model associations between openness items and language proficiency, adjusting for health literacy and sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 813 patients, parents, and caregivers who were approached to participate in the study, 608 completed surveys (74.8% response rate). A total of 87.7% (533 of 608) of participants (434 [82.0%] female individuals) completed language proficiency and health literacy items and were included in the analyses; of these, 14.1% (75) had limited English proficiency. Participants with limited English proficiency had lower odds of freely speaking up if they see something that may negatively affect care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.15-0.43), questioning decisions or actions of health care providers (aOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.41), and being unafraid to ask questions when something does not seem right (aOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.71). Individuals with limited health literacy (aOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91) and a lower level of educational attainment (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95) were also less likely to question decisions or actions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that limited English proficiency was associated with lower odds of speaking up, questioning decisions or actions of providers, and being unafraid to ask questions when something does not seem right. This disparity may contribute to higher hospital safety risk for patients with limited English proficiency. Dedicated efforts to improve communication with patients and families with limited English proficiency are necessary to improve hospital safety and reduce disparities.