Disparities in eye clinic patient encounters among patients requiring language interpreter services

Abstract

Abstract Background Communication barriers are a major cause of health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). Medical interpreters play an important role in bridging this gap, however the impact of interpreters on outpatient eye center visits has not been studied. We aimed to evaluate the differences in length of eyecare visits between LEP patients self-identifying as requiring a medical interpreter and English speakers at a tertiary, safety-net hospital in the United States. Methods A retrospective review of patient encounter metrics collected by our electronic medical record was conducted for all visits between January 1, 2016 and March 13, 2020. Patient demographics, primary language spoken, self-identified need for interpreter and encounter characteristics including new patient status, patient time waiting for providers and time in room were collected. We compared visit times by patient’s self-identification of need for an interpreter, with our main outcomes being time spent with ophthalmic technician, time spent with eyecare provider, and time waiting for eyecare provider. Interpreter services at our hospital are typically remote (via phone or video). Results A total of 87,157 patient encounters were analyzed, of which 26,443 (30.3%) involved LEP patients identifying as requiring an interpreter. After adjusting for patient age at visit, new patient status, physician status (attending or resident), and repeated patient visits, there was no difference in the length of time spent with technician or physician, or time spent waiting for physician, between English speakers and patients identifying as needing an interpreter. Patients who self-identified as requiring an interpreter were more likely to have an after-visit summary printed for them, and were also more likely to keep their appointment once it was made when compared to English speakers. Conclusions Encounters with LEP patients who identify as requiring an interpreter were expected to be longer than those who did not indicate need for an interpreter, however we found that there was no difference in the length of time spent with technician or physician. This suggests providers may adjust their communication strategy during encounters with LEP patients identifying as needing an interpreter. Eyecare providers must be aware of this to prevent negative impacts on patient care. Equally important, healthcare systems should consider ways to prevent unreimbursed extra time from being a financial disincentive for seeing patients who request interpreter services.