ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Improving Interpreter Access in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Quality Improvement Initiative.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence of Professional Interpreter Use in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Strategies to Increase Professional Interpreting in Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Language barriers, mobility, and health equity: clinical risks, economic burden, and policy options for universal language access.International journal for equity in health · 2026Review
- Language interpretation and translation in emergency care: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Increasing Interpreter Use for Pediatric Cardiology Units: A Quality Improvement Initiative.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Improving Documentation of Language Interpreter Use to Increase Compliance, Quality, and Safety.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An increasing proportion of the population in the United States have limited English proficiency (LEP). Hospitals that receive federal funding must offer interpreter services. However, access is often lacking for patients. Patients with LEP are at higher risk for adverse events, and the Emergency Department is a particularly high-risk environment for these events. Methods: This quality improvement initiative took place from April 2021 to August 2022 in an urban, tertiary care Pediatric Emergency Department. A driver diagram informed four Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and data were collected through medical record review, patient surveys, and staff surveys. We tracked outcomes using run and control chart data. Results: During the study period, the proportion of patients with LEP reporting "always" having an interpreter was unchanged (no centerline shift-control chart rules). Documentation of interpreter use for encounters with patients with LEP improved. Preferred language documentation and documentation of the need for an interpreter in the electronic medical record showed no change. Process measure data for staff-reported use of professional interpreters significantly increased, and the use of ad hoc interpreters decreased significantly. Length of stay did not change for English or LEP patients. Conclusions: This quality improvement initiative improved appropriate documentation of LEP and decreased use of nonqualified interpreters, although no change occurred in the proportion of patients who reported always having an interpreter. Patient satisfaction was unaffected.
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.