Emergency department condition acuity, length of stay, and revisits among deaf and hard-of-hearing patients: A retrospective chart review

Association between language discordance and unplanned hospital readmissions or emergency department revisits: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Studies conflict about whether language discordance increases rates of hospital readmissions or emergency department (ED) revisits for adult and paediatric patients. The literature was systematically reviewed to investigate the association between language discordance and hospital readmission and ED revisit rates.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar on 21 January 2021, and updated on 27 October 2022. No date or language limits were used.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles that (1) were peer-reviewed publications; (2) contained data about patient or parental language skills and (3) included either unplanned hospital readmission or ED revisit as one of the outcomes, were screened for inclusion. Articles were excluded if: unavailable in English; contained no primary data or inaccessible in a full-text form (eg, abstract only).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for scoping reviews guidelines. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. We performed a meta-analysis of 18 adult studies for 28-day or 30-day hospital readmission; 7 adult studies of 30-day ED revisits and 5 paediatric studies of 72-hour or 7-day ED revisits. We also conducted a stratified analysis by whether access to interpretation services was verified/provided for the adult readmission analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Odds of hospital readmissions within a 28-day or 30-day period and ED revisits within a 7-day period.

RESULTS

We generated 4830 citations from all data sources, of which 49 (12 paediatric; 36 adult; 1 with both adult and paediatric) were included. In our meta-analysis, language discordant adult patients had increased odds of hospital readmissions (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18). Among the 4 studies that verified interpretation services for language discordant patient-clinician interactions, there was no difference in readmission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05), while studies that did not specify interpretation service access/use found higher odds of readmission (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.22). Adult patients with a non-dominant language preference had higher odds of ED revisits (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.004 to 1.152) compared with adults with a dominant language preference. In 5 paediatric studies, children of parents language discordant with providers had higher odds of ED revisits at 72 hours (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19) and 7 days (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03) compared with patients whose parents had language concordant communications.

DISCUSSION

Adult patients with a non-dominant language preference have more hospital readmissions and ED revisits, and children with parents who have a non-dominant language preference have more ED revisits. Providing interpretation services may mitigate the impact of language discordance and reduce hospital readmissions among adult patients.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022302871.

Cesarean birth and adverse birth outcomes among sub-populations of deaf and hard-of-hearing people

BACKGROUND

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) people are at higher risk than their non-DHH counterparts of experiencing adverse birth outcomes. There is a lack of research focusing on social, linguistic, and medical factors related to being DHH which may identify groups of DHH people who experience more inequity.

OBJECTIVE

Examine difference in prevalence of cesarean and adverse birth outcomes among diverse sub-groups of DHH people.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of DHH birthing people in the U.S. who gave birth within the past 10 years. The sample was predominantly white, college educated, and married. We assessed cesarean birth and three adverse birth outcomes: preterm birth, low birthweight, and NICU admission post-delivery. DHH-specific variables were genetic etiology of hearing loss, preferred language (i.e., American Sign Language, English, or bilingual), severity of hearing loss, age of onset of hearing loss, and self-reported quality of perinatal care communication. We estimated prevalence, 95 % confidence intervals, and unadjusted prevalence ratios.

RESULTS

Thirty-one percent of our sample reported a cesarean birth. Overall, there were no significant differences in prevalence across the outcome variables with respect to preferred language, genetic etiology, severity, and age of onset. Poorer perinatal care communication quality was associated with higher prevalence of preterm birth (PR = 2.37) and NICU admission (PR = 1.91).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found no evidence supporting differences in obstetric outcomes among DHH birthing people across medical factors related to deafness. Findings support the important role of communication access for DHH people in healthcare environments.

Deaf patients' preferred communication in clinical settings: implications for healthcare providers

Deaf patients who communicate in American Sign Language (ASL) experience communication challenges leading to medical errors, treatment delays, and health disparities. Research on Deaf patient communication preferences is sparse. Researchers conducted focus groups based on the Health Belief Model with culturally Deaf patients and interpreters. The ASL focus groups were interpreted and transcribed into written English, verified by a third-party interpreting agency, and uploaded into NVivo. Deductive coding was used to identify communication methods and inductive coding was used to identify themes within each. Writing back-and-forth introduced challenges related to English proficiency, medical terminology, poor penmanship, and tendencies of providers to abbreviate. Participants had various speechreading abilities and described challenges with mask mandates. Multiple issues were identified with family and friends as proxy interpreters, including a lack of training, confidentiality issues, emotional support, and patient autonomy. Video remote interpreter challenges included technical, environmental, and interpreter qualification concerns. Participants overwhelmingly preferred on-site interpreters for communication clarity. While there was a preference for direct care, many acknowledged this is not always feasible due to lack of providers fluent in ASL. Access to on-site interpreters is vital for many Deaf patients to provide full access to critical medical information. Budget allocation for on-call interpreters is important in emergency settings.

Emergency department patient-centred care perspectives from deaf and hard-of-hearing patients

BACKGROUND

Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) patients are a priority population for emergency medicine health services research. DHH patients are at higher risk than non-DHH patients of using the emergency department (ED), have longer lengths of stay in the ED and report poor patient-provider communication. This qualitative study aimed to describe ED care-seeking and patient-centred care perspectives among DHH patients.

METHODS

This qualitative study is the second phase of a mixed-methods study. The goal of this study was to further explain quantitative findings related to ED outcomes among DHH and non-DHH patients. We conducted semistructured interviews with 4 DHH American Sign Language (ASL)-users and 6 DHH English speakers from North Central Florida. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach.

RESULTS

Two themes were developed: (1) DHH patients engage in a complex decision-making process to determine ED utilization and (2) patient-centred ED care differs between DHH ASL-users and DHH English speakers. The first theme describes the social-behavioural processes through which DHH patients assess their need to use the ED. The second theme focuses on the social environment within the ED: patients feeling stereotyped, involvement in the care process, pain communication, receipt of accommodations and discharge processes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the importance of better understanding, and intervening in, DHH patient ED care-seeking and care delivery to improve patient outcomes. Like other studies, this study also finds that DHH patients are not a monolithic group and language status is an equity-relevant indicator. We also discuss recommendations for emergency medicine.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study convened a community advisory group made up of four DHH people to assist in developing research questions, data collection tools and validation of the analysis and interpretation of data. Community advisory group members who were interested in co-authorship are listed in the byline, with others in the acknowledgements. In addition, several academic-based co-authors are also deaf or hard of hearing.

Use of Routine Emergency Department Care Practices with Deaf American Sign Language Users

BACKGROUND

Deaf individuals who communicate using American Sign Language (ASL) seem to experience a range of disparities in health care, but there are few empirical data.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the provision of common care practices in the emergency department (ED) to this population.

METHODS

ED visits in 2018 at a U.S. academic medical center were assessed retrospectively in Deaf adults who primarily use ASL (n = 257) and hearing individuals who primarily use English, selected at random (n = 429). Logistic regression analyses adjusted for confounders compared the groups on the provision or nonprovision of four routine ED care practices (i.e., laboratories ordered, medications ordered, images ordered, placement of peripheral intravenous line [PIV]) and on ED disposition (admitted to hospital or not admitted).

RESULTS

The ED encounters with Deaf ASL users were less likely to include laboratory tests being ordered: adjusted odds ratio 0.68 and 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.97. ED encounters with Deaf individuals were also less likely to include PIV placement, less likely to result in images being ordered in the ED care of ASL users of high acuity compared with English users of high acuity (but not low acuity), and less likely to result in hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest disparate provision of several types of routine ED care for adult Deaf ASL users. Limitations include the observational study design at a single site and reliance on the medical record, underscoring the need for further research and potential reasons for disparate ED care with Deaf individuals.