Mammography facilities serving vulnerable women have longer follow-up times.

ObjectiveTo investigate mammography facilities' follow-up times, population vulnerability, system-based processes, and association with cancer stage at diagnosis.Data sourcesProspectively collected from San Francisco Mammography Registry (SFMR) 2005-2011, California Cancer Registry 2005-2012, SFMR facility survey 2012.Study designWe examined time to biopsy for 17 750 abnormal mammogram results (BI-RADS 4/5), categorizing eight facilities as short or long follow-up based on proportion of mammograms with biopsy at 30 days. We examined facility population vulnerability (race/ethnicity, language, education), and system processes. Among women with a cancer diagnosis, we modeled odds of advanced-stage (≥IIb) cancer diagnosis by facility follow-up group.Data extraction methodsMerged SFMR, Cancer Registry and facility survey data.Principal findingsFacilities (N = 4) with short follow-up completed biopsies by 30 days for 82% of mammograms compared with 62% for facilities with long follow-up (N = 4) (P < 0.0001). All facilities serving high proportions of vulnerable women were long follow-up facilities. The long follow-up facilities had fewer radiologists, longer biopsy appointment wait times, and less communication directly with women. Having the index abnormal mammogram at a long follow-up facility was associated with higher adjusted odds of advanced-stage cancer (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.10-1.91).ConclusionsProviding mammography facilities serving vulnerable women with appropriate resources may decrease disparities in abnormal mammogram follow-up and cancer diagnosis stage

Physician Use of Advance Care Planning Discussions in a Diverse Hospitalized Population

Two decades after the Patient Self Determination Act it is unknown how often physicians have advance care planning (ACP) discussions with hospitalized patients. The objective of this study is to investigate use of ACP discussions in a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual hospitalized population. Cross-sectional communication study of hospitalized patients. The Participants are 369 patients at one urban county hospital and one academic medical center. Interventions are not applicable. Participants were asked at baseline and a post-discharge interview whether hospital physicians had discussed either (a) what type of treatment they would want if they could not make decisions for themselves or (b) whether they would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation if needed. We compared patient characteristics for those who did and did not have an ACP discussion. Only 151 (41%) participants reported an ACP discussion. Rates of ACP were low across ethnic, language, education and age groups. In a multivariate model, scoring higher on a co-morbidity scale was associated with higher odds of reporting having had an ACP discussion during hospitalization; this finding remained after adjusting for time period and site of data collection. Multiethnic, multi-lingual hospitalized patients reported low rates of ACP discussions with their physicians regardless of ethnicity, English proficiency, education level or age

Accuracy of self-reported breast cancer among women undergoing mammography

This study estimated the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported breast cancer and their associations with patient factors and pathologic findings using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Identification of Limited English Proficient Patients in Clinical Care

BackgroundStandardized means to identify patients likely to benefit from language assistance are needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of the U.S. Census English proficiency question (Census-LEP) in predicting patients' ability to communicate effectively in English.DesignWe investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the Census-LEP alone or in combination with a question on preferred language for medical care for predicting patient-reported ability to discuss symptoms and understand physician recommendations in English.ParticipantsThree hundred and two patients > 18 who spoke Spanish and/or English recruited from a cardiology clinic and an inpatient general medical-surgical ward in 2004-2005.ResultsOne hundred ninety-eight (66%) participants reported speaking English less than "very well" and 166 (55%) less than "well"; 157 (52%) preferred receiving their medical care in Spanish. Overall, 135 (45%) were able to discuss symptoms and 143 (48%) to understand physician recommendations in English. The Census-LEP with a high-threshold (less than "very well") had the highest sensitivity for predicting effective communication (100% Discuss; 98.7% Understand), but the lowest specificity (72.6% Discuss; 67.1% Understand). The composite measure of Census-LEP and preferred language for medical care provided a significant increase in specificity (91.9% Discuss; 83.9% Understand), with only a marginal decrease in sensitivity (99.4% Discuss; 96.7% Understand).ConclusionsUsing the Census-LEP item with a high-threshold of less than "very well" as a screening question, followed by a language preference for medical care question, is recommended for inclusive and accurate identification of patients likely to benefit from language assistance

Missed Opportunities: Family History and Behavioral Risk Factors in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among a Multiethnic Group of Women

BACKGROUND: Clinician’s knowledge of a woman’s cancer family history (CFH) and counseling about health-related behaviors (HRB) is necessary for appropriate breast cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether clinicians solicit CFH and counsel women on HRB; to assess relationship of well visits and patient risk perception or worry with clinician’s behavior. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Multiethnic sample; 1,700 women from San Francisco Mammography Registry with a screening mammogram in 2001–2002. MEASUREMENTS: Predictors: well visit in prior year, self-perception of 10-year breast cancer risk, worry scale. Outcomes: Patient report of clinician asking about CFH in prior year, or ever counseling about HRB in relation to breast cancer risk. Multivariate models included age, ethnicity, education, language of interview, insurance/mammography facility, well visit, ever having a breast biopsy/follow-up mammography, Gail-Model risk, Jewish heritage, and body mass index. RESULTS: 58% reported clinicians asked about CFH; 33% reported clinicians ever discussed HRB. In multivariate analysis, regardless of actual risk, perceived risk, or level of worry, having had a well visit in prior year was associated with increased odds (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.6, 3.3) that a clinician asked about CFH. Regardless of actual risk of breast cancer, a higher level of worry (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.4, 2.6) was associated with increased odds that a clinician ever discussed HRB. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians are missing opportunities to elicit family cancer histories and counsel about health-related behaviors and breast cancer risk. Preventive health visits offer opportunities for clinicians to address family history, risk behaviors, and patients’ worries about breast cancer

Association of Primary Language and Hospitalization for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions

BackgroundLimited English proficiency is associated with decreased access to ambulatory care, however, it is unclear if this disparity leads to increased use of emergency departments (EDs) for low severity ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs).ObjectiveWe sought to determine the association between the patient's preferred language and hospital utilization for ACSCs.Research designWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all ED visits in New Jersey in 2013 and 2014. The primary outcome was hospital admission for acute ACSCs, chronic ACSCs, and fractures (a nonambulatory care sensitive control condition). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and length of stay. Mixed-effect regression models estimated the association between preferred language (English vs. non-English) and study outcomes, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics.ResultsWe examined 201,351 ED visits for acute ACSCs, 251,193 visits for chronic ACSCs, and 148,428 visits for fractures, of which 13.5%, 11.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, were by non-English speakers. In adjusted analyses, non-English speakers were less likely to be admitted for acute ACSCs [-3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.6% to -2.5%] and chronic ACSCs (-2.3%; 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.7%) but not fractures (0.4%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 1.0%). Among hospitalized patients, non-English speakers were less likely to receive ICU services but had no difference in length of stay.ConclusionsThese findings suggest non-English-speaking patients may seek ED care for lower acuity ACSCs than English-speaking patients. Efforts to decrease preventable ED and increase access to ambulatory care use should consider the needs of non-English-speaking patients

The language divide. The importance of training in the use of itnerpreters for outpatient practice.

PURPOSE: Provision of interpreter services for non-English-speaking patients is a federal requirement. We surveyed clinicians to describe their experience using interpreters. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we surveyed clinicians in three academic outpatient settings in San Francisco (N = 194) regarding their most recent patient encounter which involved an interpreter. Questions about the visit included type of interpreter, satisfaction with content of clinical encounter, potential problems, and frequency of need. Previous training in interpreter use, languages spoken, and demographics were also asked. Questionnaires were self-administered in approximately 10 minutes. RESULTS: Of 194 questionnaires mailed, 158 were completed (81% response rate) and 67% were from resident physicians. Most respondents (78%) were very satisfied or satisfied with the medical care they provided, 85% felt satisfied with their ability to diagnose a disease and treat a disease, but only 45% were satisfied with their ability to empower the patient with knowledge about their disease, treatment, or medication. Even though 71% felt they were able to make a personal connection with their patient, only 33% felt they had learned about another culture as a result of the encounter. Clinicians reported difficulties eliciting exact symptoms (70%), explaining treatments (44%), and eliciting treatment preferences (51%). Clinicians perceived that lack of knowledge of a patient's culture hindered their ability to provide quality medical care and only 18% felt they were unable to establish trust or rapport. Previous training in interpreter use was associated with increased use of professional interpreters (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 7.5) and increased satisfaction with medical care provided (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 6.6). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported communication difficulties affecting their ability to understand symptoms and treat disease, as well as their ability to empower patients regarding their healthcare. Training in the use of interpreters may improve communication and clinical care, and thus health outcomes