The healing power of language: caring for patients with limited english proficiency and COVID-19

Through the eyes of Spanish-speaking patients, caregivers, and community leaders: a qualitative study on the in-patient hospital experience

BACKGROUND

Spanish-speakers with non-English language preference and complex medical needs suffer disparities in quality of care, safety, and health outcomes. Communication challenges during prolonged hospitalizations for complex illnesses negatively influence how this group engages in their care and decision-making while hospitalized. Limited literature capturing the perspectives of Spanish-speaking patients in this context exists. Given the impact of language barriers on care and medical decision-making, this study documents the experiences of Spanish-speaking patients with NELP and hospitalized with complex care needs as well as caregivers and community leaders.

METHODS

Using community-engaged recruitment strategies and semi-structured interviews and a focus group, we gathered insights from Spanish-speaking patients hospitalized for prolonged periods, caregivers, and community leaders from three geographic regions. Data were deidentified, transcribed, translated, coded in duplicate, and analyzed guided by grounded theory using NVivo.

RESULTS

We interviewed 40 participants: 27 patients, 10 caregivers and 3 community leaders. We identified four major themes: (1) Disconnected experiences impeding interactions, communication, and decision-making (2) Inadequate interpreter services (3) Benefits and consequences of family at the bedside (4) Community -informed recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that in-person interpreters were preferred to virtual interpreters; yet interpreter access was suboptimal. This resulted in ad hoc family interpretation. Participants noted language negatively impacted patient's hospital experience, including decreasing confidence in medical decision-making. Recommendations from patients, caregivers, and community leaders included expanding interpreter access, bolstering interpreter quality and accuracy, and increasing resources for patient education.

Language access research for community health: provider perspectives on language access techniques and the role of communication technology

BACKGROUND

In the United States, 66 million people speak a language other than English at home. Patients with diverse language needs often face significant health disparities. Information and communication technologies have expanded the realm of modalities for patient-provider communication. However, the extent to which digital language access tools are utilized by healthcare providers is unknown. This research examines provider perspectives on language assistance techniques and the role of communication technology when serving patients with non-English language preference (NELP).

METHODS

Between April and July 2019, an online survey was administered to 3,033 healthcare providers (doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and dentists) in Washington State. Providers reported on their language access practices and perspectives on communication technology.

RESULTS

Most providers reported using ad hoc language access techniques when engaging patients with NELP, such as a patient's family member or friend (75.8%), a patient's child specifically (61.9%), or a bilingual staff member (64.3%). Professional techniques, such as in-person interpretation (53.5%), phone interpretation (57%), and video remote interpretation (38.8%), were used less often. Dissatisfaction with the language access processes of healthcare providers' place of work was associated with a higher reliance on a patient's family or friend for language interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that providers might be under-utilizing professional and digital interpreter services while relying on ad hoc techniques. Such practices reveal systemic constraints on language access that might make it difficult for providers to access timely and reliable options for professional language interpretation, despite federal regulations that mandate such services for patients with NELP.

Strategies Used by Healthcare Systems to Communicate with Hospitalized Patients and Families with Limited English Proficiency During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minorities in the United States, including many with limited English proficiency (LEP). These patients face various communication barriers, including a shortage of available interpreters and the need for masks that exacerbated communication barriers. It is not known how hospitals responded to these unique challenges to providing language services for the large number of patients with LEP during COVID-19. This narrative review assessed literature and lay media to identify strategies utilized by hospitals to communicate with patients with LEP hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic. A search of APA PsychInfo, EBM Reviews, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, and Ebsco Megafile initially yielded 61 articles, 6 of which were ultimately included after reviewing abstracts and full texts. The identified interventions, which sought to increase accessibility of language-concordant care, increase accessibility of professional interpretation, and improve family communication and understanding, were described positively, though only one was tested for effectiveness.

Advocating for language equity: a community-public health partnership

In the United States, 21.5% of individuals aged 5 or older speak a language other than English at home and 8.2% have Limited English Proficiency (LEP). LEP individuals experience healthcare disparities, including lower access to healthcare services, poorer health outcomes, and higher levels of uninsurance. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated these health disparities and unmet healthcare needs. In Alameda County (CA), where 46% of foreign-born residents speak a language other than English at home, community-based organizations have been crucial in providing translated materials and one-on-one support to ensure LEP residents receive critical COVID-19 updates and services. Refugee and Immigrant Collaborative for Empowerment (RICE) is a multilingual coalition of seven Alameda County community-based organizations led by the Korean Community Center of the East Bay (KCCEB). During the COVID-19 pandemic, RICE expanded its public health role to fill service and information gaps, advocate on behalf of LEP groups, and build a linguistically and culturally responsive public health safety network. This community case study describes a three-part advocacy-focused intervention that RICE undertook from September 2021 to October 2022. It included (1) a community needs survey, (2) a landscape assessment of the Alameda County Health Department's (ACPHD) communication materials and online platforms, and (3) relationship building with the ACPHD. The community survey revealed differences across LEP subgroups and highlighted the importance of gathering data disaggregated by language preference. The landscape assessment allowed RICE to understand the ACPHD's decision-making process and develop data-informed advocacy requests on behalf of LEP communities. Effective communication and coordination between RICE and the ACPHD shortened the feedback loop between public health authorities and LEP communities and laid the groundwork for the RICE organizations to be part of the ACPHD's future decision making. Data disaggregation, language equity-based advocacy, and cross-sector collaboration were critical ingredients in RICE's intervention. RICE's partnership and relationship of mutual accountability with the ACPHD may provide a useful model for other community-based organizations and public health departments seeking to form similar partnerships.

Lessons Learned from Health Disparities in Coronavirus Disease-2019 in the United States

In the United States, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionally affected Black, Latinx, and Indigenous populations, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged individuals. Such historically marginalized groups are more often employed in low-wage jobs without health insurance and have higher rates of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19 than non-Latinx White individuals. Mistrust in the health care system, language barriers, and limited health literacy have hindered vaccination rates in minorities, further exacerbating health disparities rooted in structural, institutional, and socioeconomic inequities. In this article, we discuss the lessons learned over the last 2 years and how to mitigate health disparities moving forward.

Politics, policies, and patient care: Rehabilitation therapists' experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The year 2020 represents a historically turbulent period for the United States marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, a contentious political season, and heightened awareness of racism among citizens. This intersection of medicine, politics, and social unrest generated a demanding clinical environment for healthcare workers, including understudied groups such as physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language pathologists. This descriptive qualitative study focused on experiences and perspectives of clinical rehabilitation therapists working in inpatient rehabilitation and acute-care units from September to November, 2020. Thirteen participants completed individual, semi-structured interviews focused on clinical practice and coping strategies. The analysis included a multi-step, inductive process. Four interconnecting factors chronicling participants' experiences emerged: sociopolitical, institutional, hospital unit, and personal. Stressors and buffers were noted that further shaped individual experiences. Utilization of an ecological framework provided a way to recognize the impact of a complex range of social and environmental factors affecting participants' experiences on personal and professional levels. Awareness of rehabilitation therapists' experiences enriches understanding of the pandemic's effect on healthcare workers and presents clinical implications for healthcare systems to promote therapist well-being.

Differences in End-of-Life Care between COVID-19 Inpatient Decedents with English Proficiency and Limited English Proficiency

Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience lower quality end-of-life (EOL) care. This inequity may have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: Compare health care utilization, EOL, and palliative care outcomes between COVID-19 decedents with and without LEP during the pandemic's first wave in Massachusetts. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients who died from COVID-19 between February 18, 2020 and May 18, 2020 at two academic and four community hospitals within a greater Boston health care system. We performed multivariable regression adjusting for patient sociodemographic variables and hospital characteristics. Primary outcome was place of death (intensive care unit [ICU] vs. non-ICU). Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU length of stay and time to initial palliative care consultation. Results: Among 337 patients, 89 (26.4%) had LEP and 248 (73.6%) were English proficient. Patients with LEP were less often white (24 [27.0%] vs. 193 [77.8%]; p < 0.001); were more often Hispanic or Latinx (40 [45.0%] vs. 13 [5.2%]; p < 0.001); and less often had a medical order for life-sustaining treatment (MOLST) on admission (15 [16.9%] vs. 120 [48.4%]; p < 0.001) versus patients with English proficiency. In the multivariable analyses, LEP was not independently associated with ICU death, ICU length of stay, or time to palliative care consultation, but was independently associated with increased hospital length of stay (mean difference 4.12 days; 95% CI, 1.72-6.53; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Inpatient COVID-19 decedents with LEP were not at increased risk of an ICU death, but were associated with an increased hospital length of stay versus inpatient COVID-19 decedents with English proficiency.

The impact of family visitor restrictions on healthcare workers in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

To obtain information on how family visitor restriction during the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the workplace experience of physicians and nurses in the medical intensive care unit, and to assess differences by profession.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a survey containing closed- and open-ended questions, applying both quantitative and qualitative analyses to our results.

RESULTS

Of the 74 respondents, 29 (38%) were nurses and 45 (62%) were physicians. Nurses reported positive changes to daily workflow and the ability to provide medical care, while physicians reported negative changes in these areas. Both groups reported decreased comprehension and increased distress among families, and decreased ability to provide end-of-life care. For the qualitative analysis, eight themes were identified: the patient's room as space, creation of a new space through virtual communication, time, increased complexity of care, challenges around the use of technology, adjustments to team roles and responsibilities, desire for families to return, and internal tension.

CONCLUSION

Intensive care physicians and nurses reported both positive and negative effects of family visitor restriction during the COVID-19 pandemic, with significant differences based on profession. Both groups expressed concern for an overall negative impact of visitor restriction on healthcare workers, patients, and their families.