Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39888652›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Electronic Health Record Data Collection Practices to Advance Standardization and Interoperability of Patient Preferences for Interpretation Services: Qualitative Study.

Krysta Heaney-Huls, Rida Shams, Ruth Nwefo, Rachel Kane, Janna Gordon, Alison M Laffan, Scott Stare, Prashila Dullabh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Krysta Heaney-Huls *NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2386-5301
Rida Shams *NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-2519-403X
Ruth Nwefo *NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0009-0005-0497-2426
Rachel Kane *Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-5168-272X
Janna Gordon *Riverbend Health Psychology, PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0857-0940
Alison M Laffan *NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0009-0004-2476-6008
Scott Stare *Office of Minority Health, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-7547-5228
Prashila Dullabh *NORC at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0241-0225

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor health outcomes are well documented among patients with a non-English language preference (NELP). The use of interpreters can improve the quality of care for patients with NELP. Despite a growing and unmet need for interpretation services in the US health care system, rates of interpreter use in the care setting are consistently low. Standardized collection and exchange of patient interpretation needs can improve access to appropriate language assistance services.

objectiveThis study aims to examine current practices for collecting, documenting, and exchanging information on a patient's self-reported preference for an interpreter in the electronic health record (EHR) and the implementation maturity and adoption level of available data standards. The paper identifies standards implementation; data collection workflows; use cases for collecting, documenting, and exchanging information on a patient's self-reported preference for an interpreter; challenges to data collection and use; and opportunities to advance standardization of the interpreter needed data element to facilitate patient-centered care.

methodsWe conducted a narrative review to describe the availability of terminology standards to facilitate health care organization documentation of a patient's self-reported preference for an interpreter in the EHR. Key informant discussions with EHR developers, health systems, clinicians, a practice-based research organization, a national standards collaborative, a professional health care association, and Federal agency representatives filled in gaps from the narrative review.

resultsThe findings indicate that health care organizations value standardized collection and exchange of patient language assistance service needs and preferences. Informants identified three use cases for collecting, documenting, and exchanging information on a patient's self-reported preference for an interpreter, which are (1) person-centered care, (2) transitions of care, and (3) health care administration. The discussions revealed that EHR developers provide a data field for documenting interpreter needed data, which are routinely collected across health care organizations through commonly used data collection workflows. However, this data element is not mapped to standard terminologies, such as Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) or Systematized Medical Nomenclature for Medicine-Clinical Terminology (SNOMED-CT), consequently limiting the opportunities to electronically share these data between health systems and community-based organizations. The narrative review and key informant discussions identified three potential challenges to using information on a patient's self-reported preference for an interpreter for person-centered care and quality improvement, which are (1) lack of adoption of available data standards, (2) limited electronic exchange, and (3) patient mistrust.

conclusionsCollecting and documenting patient's self-reported interpreter preferences can improve the quality of services provided, patient care experiences, and equitable health care delivery without invoking a significant burden on the health care system. Although there is routine collection and documentation of patient interpretation needs, the lack of standardization limits the exchange of this information among health care and community-based organizations.

Indexed as

Data CollectionElectronic Health RecordsPatient PreferenceTranslatingHumansQualitative Researchcommunication barrierselectronic health recordshealth information exchangeinteroperabilityinterpreterlimited English proficiency

Identifiers

PMID39888652
PMCPMC11829169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.