Leah S. Karliner

Gastric banding or bypass: a systematic review comparing the two most popular bariatric procedures

OBJECTIVE Bariatric surgical procedures have increased exponentially in the United States. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding is now promoted as a safer, potentially reversible and effective alternative to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, the current standard of care. This study evaluated the balance of patient-oriented clinical outcomes for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. METHODS The MEDLINE database (1966 to January 2007), Cochrane clinical trials database, Cochrane reviews database, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched using the key terms gastroplasty, gastric bypass, laparoscopy, Swedish band, and gastric banding. Studies with at least 1 year of follow-up that directly compared laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were included. Resolution of obesity-related comorbidities, percentage of excess body weight loss, quality of life, perioperative complications, and long-term adverse events were the abstracted outcomes. RESULTS The search identified 14 comparative studies (1 randomized trial). Few studies reported outcomes beyond 1 year. Excess body weight loss at 1 year was consistently greater for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass than laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (median difference, 26%; range, 19%-34%; P < .001). Resolution of comorbidities was greater after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. In the highest-quality study, excess body weight loss was 76% with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass versus 48% with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, and diabetes resolved in 78% versus 50% of cases, respectively. Both operating room time and length of hospitalization were shorter for those undergoing laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Adverse events were inconsistently reported. Operative mortality was less than 0.5% for both procedures. Perioperative complications were more common with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (9% vs 5%), whereas long-term reoperation rates were lower after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (16% vs 24%). Patient satisfaction favored Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (P=.006). CONCLUSION Weight loss outcomes strongly favored Roux-en-Y gastric bypass over laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Patients treated with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding had lower short-term morbidity than those treated with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, but reoperation rates were higher among patients who received laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding. Gastric bypass should remain the primary bariatric procedure used to treat obesity in the United States.

The Language Divide: The Importance of Training in the Use of Interpreters for Outpatient Practice

AbstractPURPOSE: 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.

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. (246 words)

Patterns of Interpreter Use for Hospitalized Patients with Limited English Proficiency

ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDProfessional interpreter use improves the quality of care for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), but little is known about interpreter use in the hospital.OBJECTIVEEvaluate interpreter use for clinical encounters in the hospital.DESIGNCross-sectional.PARTICIPANTSHospitalized Spanish and Chinese-speaking LEP patients.MAIN MEASURESPatient reported use of interpreters during hospitalization.KEY RESULTSAmong 234 patients, 57% reported that any kind of interpreter was present with the physician at admission, 60% with physicians during hospitalization, and 37% with nurses since admission. The use of professional interpreters with physicians was infrequent overall (17% at admission and 14% since admission), but even less common for encounters with nurses (4%, p < 0.0001). Use of a family member, friend or other patient as interpreter was more common with physicians (28% at admission, 23% since admission) than with nurses (18%, p = 0.008). Few patients reported that physicians spoke their language well (19% at admission, 12% since admission) and even fewer reported that nurses spoke their language well (6%, p = 0.0001). Patients were more likely to report that they either “got by” without an interpreter or were barely spoken to at all with nurses (38%) than with physicians at admission (14%) or since admission (15%, p < 0.0001).CONCLUSIONSInterpreter use varied by type of clinical contact, but was overall more common with physicians than with nurses. Professional interpreters were rarely used. With physicians, use of ad hoc interpreters such as family or friends was most common; with nurses, patients often reported, “getting by” without an interpreter or barely speaking at all.

Language Barriers and Understanding of Hospital Discharge Instructions

Background:Effective communication at hospital discharge is necessary for an optimal transition and to avoid adverse events. We investigated the association of a language barrier with patient understanding of discharge instructions. Methods:Spanish-speaking, Chinese-speaking, and English-speaking patients admitted to 2 urban hospitals between 2005 and 2008, comparing patient understanding of follow-up appointment type, and medication category and purpose between limited English-proficient (LEP) and English-proficient patients. Results:Of the 308 patients, 203 were LEP. Rates of understanding were low overall for follow-up appointment type (56%) and the 3 medication outcomes (category 48%, purpose 55%, both 41%). In unadjusted analysis, LEP patients were less likely than English-proficient patients to know appointment type (50% vs. 66%; P=0.01), medication category (45% vs. 54%; P=0.05), and medication category and purpose combined (38% vs. 47%; P=0.04), but equally likely to know medication purpose alone. These results persisted in the adjusted models for medication outcomes: LEP patients had lower odds of understanding medication category (odds ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.95); and category/purpose (odds ratio 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.39–0.89). Conclusions:Understanding of appointment type and medications after discharge was low, with LEP patients demonstrating worse understanding of medications. System interventions to improve communication at hospital discharge for all patients, and especially those with LEP, are needed.

Who is Responsible for Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Medical Devices? The Role of Independent Technology Assessment

IntroductionThe global medical technology industry brings thousands of devices to market every year. However, significant gaps persist in the scientific literature, in the medical device approval process, and in the realm of postmarketing surveillance. Although thousands of drugs obtain approval only after review in randomized controlled trials, relatively few new medical devices are subject to comparable scrutiny.ObjectiveTo improve health outcomes, we must enhance our scrutiny of medical devices, and, without simply deferring to the Food and Drug Administration, we must ask ourselves: Who is responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medical devices?ConclusionsTechnology assessments by independent organizations are a part of the solution to this challenge and may motivate further research focused on patient outcomes.

Clinician ratings of interpreter mediated visits in underserved primary care settings with ad hoc, in-person professional, and video conferencing modes.

Linguistic interpretation ameliorates health disparities disfavoring underserved limited English-proficient patients, yet few studies have compared clinician satisfaction with these services. Self-administered clinician post-visit surveys compared the quality of interpretation and communication, visit satisfaction, degree of patient engagement, and cultural competence of visits using untrained people acting as interpreters (ad hoc), in-person professional, or video conferencing professional interpretation for 283 visits. Adjusting for clinician and patient characteristics, the quality of interpretation of in-person and video conferencing modes were rated similarly (OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.74, 4.33). The quality of in-person (OR 5.55, 95% CI 1.50, 20.51) and video conferencing (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.16, 8.31) were rated higher than ad hoc interpretation. Self-assessed cultural competence was better for in-person versus video conferencing interpretation (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.11, 4.86). Video conferencing interpretation increases access without compromising quality, but cultural nuances may be better addressed by in-person interpreters. Professional interpretation is superior to ad hoc (OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.43, 12.09).

Poor Patient Comprehension of Abnormal Mammography Results

AbstractBACKGROUND: Screening mammography for women 50 to 69 years of age may lead to 50% having an abnormal study. We set out to determine the proportion of women who understand their abnormal mammogram results and the factors that predict understanding. METHODS: We surveyed 970 women age 40 to 80 years identified with abnormal mammograms from 4 clinical sites. We collected information on demographic factors, language of interview, consultation with a primary care physician, receipt of follow-up tests, and method of notification of index mammogram result. This study examines the following outcomes: the participant’s report of understanding of her physician’s explanation of results of the index mammogram, and a comparison of the radiology report to the participant’s report of her index mammogram result. Multivariate models controlled for age, education, income, insurance status, and clinical site. RESULTS: The majority (70%) reported a “full understanding” of their physician’s explanation of their abnormal mammogram, but a significant minority (30%) reported less than a full understanding (somewhat, not at all, did not explain). Among women of Asian ethnicity, only 63% reported full understanding. Asian ethnicity was a negative predictor (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3 to 0.7), and consultation with a primary care physician was a positive predictor (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3) of reported full understanding. Of the 304 women with a suspicious abnormality, only 51% understood their result to be abnormal. Women notified in person or by telephone were more likely than women notified in writing to understand their result to be abnormal (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.8). CONCLUSION: Almost half of women with the most suspicious mammograms did not understand that their results was abnormal. Our data suggest that direct communication with a clinician in person or by phone improves comprehension.

Language Barriers, Location of Care and Delays in Follow-up of Abnormal Mammograms

Background:Breast cancer is frequently diagnosed after an abnormal mammography result. Language barriers can complicate communication of those results. Objectives:We evaluated the association of non-English language with delay in follow-up. Methods:Retrospective cohort study of women at 3 mammography facilities participating in the San Francisco Mammography Registry with an abnormal mammogram result from 1997 to 2008. We measured median time from report of abnormal result to first follow-up test. Results:Of 13,014 women with 16,109 abnormal mammograms, 4027 (31%) had a non-English patient language. Clinical facilities differed in proportion of non-English speakers and in time to first follow-up test: facility A (38%; 25 d), facility B (18%; 14 d), and facility C (51%; 41 d). Most mammography examinations (67%) had breast imaging and reporting data system 0 (incomplete) assessment, requiring radiographic follow-up. At 30 days of follow-up, 67% of all English speakers with incomplete assessments had a follow-up examination compared with 50% of all non-English speakers (P<0.0001). The facility with the least delay and the lowest proportion of non-English speakers, had the biggest difference by language; compared with English speakers and adjusting for education, non-English speakers had twice the odds ratio of >30-day delay in follow-up (odds ratio=2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.9). Conclusions:There are considerable differences among facilities in delays in diagnostic follow-up of abnormal mammography results. More attention must be paid to understanding mammography facility factors, such as wait time to schedule diagnostic mammography and radiology workload, to improve rates of timely follow-up, particularly for those facilities disproportionately serving vulnerable non-English speaking patients.

The Use of Spanish Language Skills by Physicians and Nurses: Policy Implications for Teaching and Testing

Language barriers present a substantial communication challenge in the hospital setting. To describe how clinicians with various levels of Spanish language proficiency work with interpreters or their own Spanish skills in common clinical scenarios. Survey of physicians and nurses who report ever speaking Spanish with patients on a general medicine hospital floor. Spanish proficiency rated on a 5-point scale, self-reported use of specific strategies (own Spanish skills, professional or ad-hoc interpreters) to overcome the language barrier. Sixty-eight physicians and 65 nurses participated. Physicians with low-level Spanish proficiency reported frequent use of ad-hoc interpreters for all information-based scenarios, except pre-rounding in the morning when most reported using their own Spanish skills. For difficult conversations and procedural consent, most used professional interpreters. Comparatively, physicians with medium proficiency reported higher rates of using their own Spanish skills for information-based scenarios, lower rates of professional interpreter use, and little use of ad-hoc interpreters. They rarely used their own Spanish skills or ad-hoc interpreters for difficult conversations. Physicians with high-level Spanish proficiency almost uniformly reported using their own Spanish skills. The majority (82%) of nurses had low-level Spanish proficiency, and frequently worked with professional interpreters for educating patients, but more often used ad hoc interpreters and their own Spanish skills for information-based scenarios, including medication administration. Physicians and nurses with limited Spanish proficiency use these skills, even in important clinical circumstances in the hospital. Health-care organizations should evaluate clinicians’ non-English language proficiency and set policies about use of language skills in clinical care.ABSTRACTBACKGROUNDLanguage barriers present a substantial communication challenge in the hospital setting.OBJECTIVETo describe how clinicians with various levels of Spanish language proficiency work with interpreters or their own Spanish skills in common clinical scenarios.DESIGN & PARTICIPANTSSurvey of physicians and nurses who report ever speaking Spanish with patients on a general medicine hospital floor.MEASUREMENTSSpanish proficiency rated on a 5-point scale, self-reported use of specific strategies (own Spanish skills, professional or ad-hoc interpreters) to overcome the language barrier.RESULTSSixty-eight physicians and 65 nurses participated. Physicians with low-level Spanish proficiency reported frequent use of ad-hoc interpreters for all information-based scenarios, except pre-rounding in the morning when most reported using their own Spanish skills. For difficult conversations and procedural consent, most used professional interpreters. Comparatively, physicians with medium proficiency reported higher rates of using their own Spanish skills for information-based scenarios, lower rates of professional interpreter use, and little use of ad-hoc interpreters. They rarely used their own Spanish skills or ad-hoc interpreters for difficult conversations. Physicians with high-level Spanish proficiency almost uniformly reported using their own Spanish skills. The majority (82%) of nurses had low-level Spanish proficiency, and frequently worked with professional interpreters for educating patients, but more often used ad hoc interpreters and their own Spanish skills for information-based scenarios, including medication administration.CONCLUSIONSPhysicians and nurses with limited Spanish proficiency use these skills, even in important clinical circumstances in the hospital. Health-care organizations should evaluate clinicians’ non-English language proficiency and set policies about use of language skills in clinical care.