Objective

Language barriers during inpatient medication management can occur during medication reconciliation on admission and discharge, and during the hospitalization. Understanding inpatient clinicians' experiences with language barriers and use of interpreters can help inform interventions aimed at improving medication management with Limited English Proficient (LEP) patients. Our objective was to examine clinicians' experiences with language barriers around inpatient medication management.

Methods

We used semi-structured interviews with pharmacist technicians, pharmacists, nurses, and physicians working in a tertiary care hospital. We used the constant comparison method to guide data collection and analysis.

Results

We interviewed 14 providers. Nurses and physicians perceived lack of time to use formal interpreters, particularly during busy or night shifts. Clinicians strongly preferred virtual and in-person interpreter services over telephonic services, and highlighted communication challenges with patients with low health literacy, concerns about the quality of interpretation, and inconsistencies in the use of translated materials.

Conclusions

Ensuring access to formal interpreters during all shifts, translation of materials into the patient/caregiver's language, and access to in-person/virtual services would improve quality of care for LEP patients.

Practice implications

Current laws require use of interpreters, but do not provide for their reimbursement, resulting in suboptimal use. Reimbursement for interpreter services may increase their availability.

Objectives

Geriatric guidelines strongly recommend avoiding benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in older adults. Hospitalisation may provide an important opportunity to begin the process of deprescribing these medications, particularly as new contraindications arise. We used implementation science models and qualitative interviews to describe barriers and facilitators to deprescribing benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in the hospital and develop potential interventions to address identified barriers.

Design

We used two implementation science models, the Capability, Opportunity and Behaviour Model (COM-B) and the Theoretical Domains Framework, to code interviews with hospital staff, and an implementation process, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW), to codevelop potential interventions with stakeholders from each clinician group.

Setting

Interviews took place in a tertiary, 886-bed hospital located in Los Angeles, California.

Participants

Interview participants included physicians, pharmacists, pharmacist technicians, and nurses.

Results

We interviewed 14 clinicians. We found barriers and facilitators across all COM-B model domains. Barriers included lack of knowledge about how to engage in complex conversations about deprescribing (capability), competing tasks in the inpatient setting (opportunity), high levels of resistance/anxiety among patients to deprescribe (motivation), concerns about lack of postdischarge follow-up (motivation). Facilitators included high levels of knowledge about the risks of these medications (capability), regular rounds and huddles to identify inappropriate medications (opportunity) and beliefs that patients may be more receptive to deprescribing if the medication is related to the reason for hospitalisation (motivation). Potential modes of delivery included a seminar aimed at addressing capability and motivation barriers in nurses, a pharmacist-led deprescribing initiative using risk stratification to identify and target patients at highest need for deprescribing, and the use of evidence-based deprescribing education materials provided to patients at discharge.

Conclusions

While we identified numerous barriers and facilitators to initiating deprescribing conversations in the hospital, nurse- and pharmacist-led interventions may be an appropriate opportunity to initiate deprescribing.