ArticlePatient education and counseling2022
Communication methods between outpatients with limited-English proficiency and ancillary staff: LASI study results.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Strict Isolation Precautions on Families with a Language Other than English.Health equity · 2025Article
- Who do patients depend on as they age and for what medical needs? An exploratory study of Chinese and Latino primary care patients.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Access challenges for patients with limited English proficiency: a secret-shopper study of in-person and telehealth behavioral health services in California safety-net clinics.Health affairs scholar · 2023Article
- Spanish-Speaking Patients Have Limited Access Scheduling Outpatient Orthopaedic Appointments Compared With English-Speaking Patients Across the United States.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Disparities in eye clinic patient encounters among patients requiring language interpreter services.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDescribe communication methods between primary care ancillary staff, including front desk administrative staff and medical assistants (MAs), and patients with limited-English proficiency (LEP).
methodsPatients with LEP completed a telephone survey after a primary care visit including questions about communication with ancillary staff (n = 1029). To inform practice improvements and lend qualitative perspective to these quantitative data, we subsequently conducted semi-structured interviews with ancillary staff and physicians.
resultsProfessional interpreter use was minimal with ancillary staff (<4%). Among patients who did not use their preferred language with bilingual staff, about one-third reported using English to communicate, despite most (≥ 80%) speaking English 'not well' or 'not at all.' In semi-structured interviews, ancillary staff felt basic English sufficient for most patient communication. However, physicians reported taking on extra visit tasks to compensate for the communication barriers between ancillary staff and patients with LEP.
conclusionsUse of professional interpretation by front desk staff and MAs was minimal. This led many patients with LEP to 'get by' with limited English when communicating with ancillary staff, in turn increasing burden on the physician visit. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Future interventions should focus on increasing use of professional interpretation by outpatient ancillary staff when communicating with LEP patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.