Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Emergency Department Care for Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Retrospective Cohort Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Emergency Department Care for Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Retrospective Cohort Study
Do you wish to request the book?
Emergency Department Care for Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Retrospective Cohort Study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Emergency Department Care for Patients with Limited English Proficiency: a Retrospective Cohort Study
2018
Overview
BackgroundLimited English proficiency (LEP) patients may be particularly vulnerable in the high acuity and fast-paced setting of the emergency department (ED).ObjectiveTo compare the care processes of LEP patients in the ED.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingED in a large tertiary care academic medical center.PatientsAdult LEP and English Proficient (EP) patients during their index presentation to the ED from September 1, 2013, to August 31, 2015. LEP patients were identified as those who selected a preferred language other than English when registering for care.Main MeasuresRates of diagnostic studies, admission, and return visits for those originally discharged from the ED.Key ResultsWe studied 57,435 visits of which 5241 (9.1%) were for patients with LEP. In adjusted analyses, LEP patients were more likely to receive an X-ray/ultrasound (OR 1.11, CI 1.03–1.19) and be admitted to the hospital (OR 1.09, CI 1.01–1.19). There was no difference in 72-h return visits (OR 0.98, CI 0.73–1.33). LEP patients presenting with complaints related to the cardiovascular system were more likely to receive a stress test (OR 1.51, CI 1.22–1.86), and those with gastrointestinal diagnoses were more likely to have an X-ray/ultrasound (OR 1.31, CI 1.02–1.68). In stratified analyses, Spanish speakers were less likely to be admitted (OR 0.8, CI 0.70–0.91), but those preferring “other” languages, which were all languages with < 500 patients, had a statistically significant higher adjusted rate of admission (OR 1.35, CI 1.17–1.57).ConclusionsED patients with LEP experienced both increased rates of diagnostic testing and of hospital admission. Research is needed to examine why these differences occurred and if they represent inefficiencies in care.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
