ArticlePloS one2025
Nursing perspectives on advancing language access in the emergency department: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFailure to provide language services in health care settings negatively impacts patients with non-English language preferences (NELPs), yet underuse of language assistance remains rampant. Nurses in the Emergency Department (ED) handle critical communication in a fast-paced environment, posing a communication challenge. The aim of this study is to describe ED nursing perspectives on barriers and facilitators to accessing language services to construct interventions that increase the uptake of language services when interacting with ED patients with NELPs.
methodsThis is a qualitative study of ED nursing staff at two sites using the Behavior Change Wheel (BCW). Participants included registered nurses, nurse practitioners, and nursing assistants. The BCW was used to identify barriers and facilitators to accessing formal language services (professional interpreters, remote or in-person) which were mapped to intervention functions to construct proposed interventions.
resultsA total of 36 interviews were conducted with registered nurses (n = 29), nurse assistants (n = 3), and nurse practitioners (n = 4). Barriers and facilitators to calling an interpreter were identified in all three of the BCW categories of capability, opportunity and motivation. These were mapped to intervention functions on the BCW to construct tangible interventions including restructuring the environment to have designated parking spaces for video remote interpreter machines in private areas, standardized training on language access services, equipment and policies, and training senior nursing language access champions to model the behavior of calling interpreters and to discourage ad hoc interpretation.
conclusionWe identified nursing perspectives on barriers and facilitators to language access and used the BCW to construct interventions. ED administrators can use these interventions as part of efforts to eliminate the underuse of language services and the potential negative impact outcomes for patients with a NELP.
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.