Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34000817›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of hospice & palliative care2022

Healthcare Provider Perspectives Regarding Use of Medical Interpreters During End-of-Life Conversations With Limited English Proficient Patients.

Milagros D Silva, Ronald D Adelman, Vishwas Singh, Renuka Gupta, Jerad Moxley, Rosanna M Sobota, Stephanie Tsai, Brittany T Abel, M Carrington Reid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of hospice & palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Distressing Discussions in Pediatric Interpreted Medical Encounters: A Qualitative Study of Medical Interpreter Perspectives on Clinician Communication Practices.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Milagros D SilvaDivision of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2073-1113
Ronald D AdelmanDivision of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Vishwas SinghSection of Hospital Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Renuka GuptaSection of Hospital Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jerad MoxleyDivision of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Rosanna M SobotaWeill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Stephanie TsaiDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Brittany T AbelDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA.
M Carrington ReidDivision of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Disparities in COVID Disease Severity and Outcomes in New York CityUL1TR002384 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI JULIANNE L IMPERATO-MCGINLEY · 2017 to 2026
$86.2M
Pilot CoreP30AG022845 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Manney Carrington Reid · 2003 to 2026
$15.2M
Reid Aging and Pain Research Training ProgramK24AG053462 · NIA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI REID, MANNEY CARRINGTON · 2016 to 2025
$1.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002384NIA NIH HHS K24 AG053462NIA NIH HHS P30 AG022845
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare providers increasingly care for patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). There is limited research evaluating healthcare provider utilization practices, attitudes, perceived benefits and barriers regarding the use of medical interpreters in end of life (EOL) and goals of care (GOC) conversations.

objectivesTo elicit healthcare providers' opinions of the role, factors that impact decisions to use medical interpreters and perceived utility of using medical interpreters when conducting EOL and GOC conversations with LEP patients and their families.

designCross-sectional survey of internal medicine trainees and attending physicians from a U.S. medical center.

resultsA total of 117 surveys were collected with a response rate of 51%. In-person medical interpreters received higher ratings with regard to their helpfulness compared to telephone medical interpreters during EOL and GOC conversations. Being an attending physician and having received training in the use of a medical interpreter predicted higher composite scores reflecting greater awareness of the roles of medical interpreters and endorsement of best communication practices. In-person interpreters were viewed by a subset of participants as "standard of care" during EOL and GOC conversations.

conclusionHaving more years in practice and receiving training in the use of medical interpreters correlated with more favorable attitudes toward the role of medical interpreters and positive communication practices. Incorporating early training in the use of medical interpreters could help enhance communication practices and outcomes during EOL and GOC conversations with LEP patients.

Indexed as

Limited English ProficiencyCommunicationCommunication BarriersCross-Sectional StudiesDeathHealth PersonnelHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsTranslatingend-of-lifelimited English proficiencymedical interpreterpalliative carephysician

Identifiers

PMID34000817
PMCPMC10080979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.