Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 1294–1299 | Cite as

Professional Language Interpretation and Inpatient Length of Stay and Readmission Rates

  • Mary Lindholm
  • J. Lee Hargraves
  • Warren J. Ferguson
  • George Reed
Original Research

Abstract

Background

The population of persons seeking medical care is linguistically diverse in the United States. Language barriers can adversely affect a patient’s ability to explain their symptoms. Among hospitalized patients, these barriers may lead to higher readmission rates and longer hospitalizations. Trained interpreters help overcome communication barriers; however, interpreter usage among patients is suboptimal.

Objective

To investigate differences among patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) in their length of stay (LOS) and 30-day readmission rate associated with their receiving professional interpretation at admission or discharge.

Design

We analyzed the rates of interpretation at admission and discharge of all LEP patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital over a three-year period. We calculated length of stay in days and as log of LOS. We also examined 30-day readmission. Using multivariable regression models, we explored differences among patients who received interpretation at admission, discharge, or both, controlling for patient characteristics, including age, illness severity, language, and gender.

Participants

All LEP patients admitted between May 1, 2004 and April 30, 2007.

Main Measures

Length of hospital stay as related to use of professional interpreters; readmission to the hospital within 30 days.

Key Results

Of the 3071 patients included in the study, 39 % received language interpretation on both admission and discharge date. Patients who did not receive professional interpretation at admission or both admission/discharge had an increase in their LOS of between 0.75 and 1.47 days, compared to patients who had an interpreter on both day of admission and discharge (P < 0.02). Patients receiving interpretation at admission and/or discharge were less likely than patients receiving no interpretation to be readmitted with 30 days.

Conclusions

The length of a hospital stay for LEP patients was significantly longer when professional interpreters were not used at admission or both admission/discharge.

Key Words

low English proficient (LEP) interpreters length of stay (LOS) 

Supplementary material

11606_2012_2041_MOESM1_ESM.doc (116 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 116 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Census Bureau. Language use and English speaking ability. 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62(3):255–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    David R, Rhee M. The impact of language as a barrier to effective health care in an underserved urban Hispanic community. Mt Sinai J Med. 1998;65:393–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baker D, Parker R, Williams M, Coates W, Pitkin K. Use and effectiveness of interpreters in an emergency department. JAMA. 1996;275:783–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karliner L, Jacobs E, Chen A, Mutham S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care? A systematic review of the literature. Heal Serv Res. 2007;42(2):727–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ebden P, Bhatt A, Carey O, Harrison B. The bilingual consultation. Lancet. 1988;331(8581):347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Flores G, Laws M, Mayo S, et al. Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics. 2003;111(1):6–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    John-Baptiste A, Naglie G, Tomlinson G, et al. The effect of English language proficiency on length of stay and in-hospital mortality. J Gen Inter Med. 2004;19:221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karliner LS, Kim SE, Meltzer DO, Auerbach AD. Influence of language barriers on outcomes of hospital care for general medicine inpatients. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(5):276–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobs E, Sadowski L, Rathouz P. The impact of an enhanced interpreter service intervention on hospital costs and patient satisfaction. J Gen Inter Med. 2007;22(Suppl 2):306–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benbassat J, Taragin M. Hospital readmissions as a measure of quality of health care: Advantages and limitations. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1074–1081.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    García-Pérez L, Linertová R, Lorenzo-Riera A, Vázquez-Díaz JR, Duque-González B, Sarría-Santamera A. Risk factors for hospital readmissions in elderly patients: a systematic review. QJM. 2011;104(8):639–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baker D, Hayes R, Fortier J. Interpreter use and satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care for Spanish-speaking patients. Med Care Res Rev. 1998;36:1461–70.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diamond L, Schenker Y, Curry L, Bradley E, Fernandez A. Getting by: Underuse of interpreters by resident physicians. J Gen Inter Med. 2008;24(2):256–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Lindholm
    • 1
  • J. Lee Hargraves
    • 1
  • Warren J. Ferguson
    • 1
  • George Reed
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Family Medicine and Community HealthUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Division of Preventive and Behavioral MedicineUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations