Study objective

Language barriers are known to negatively affect many health outcomes among limited English proficiency patient populations, but little is known about the quality of care such patients receive in the emergency department (ED). This study seeks to determine whether limited English proficiency patients experience different quality of care than English-speaking patients in the ED, using unplanned revisit within 72 hours as a surrogate quality indicator.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in an urban adult ED in 2012, with a total of 41,772 patients and 56,821 ED visits. We compared 2,943 limited English proficiency patients with 38,829 English-speaking patients presenting to the ED after excluding patients with psychiatric complaints, altered mental status, and nonverbal states, and those with more than 4 ED visits in 12 months. Two main outcomes-the risk of inpatient admission from the ED and risk of unplanned ED revisit within 72 hours-were measured with odds ratios from generalized estimating equation multivariate models.

Results

Limited English proficiency patients were more likely than English speakers to be admitted (32.0% versus 27.2%; odds ratio [OR]=1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 1.30). This association became nonsignificant after adjustments (OR=1.04; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15). Included in the analysis of ED revisit within 72 hours were 32,857 patients with 45,546 ED visits; 4.2% of all patients (n=1,380) had at least 1 unplanned revisit. Limited English proficiency patients were more likely than English speakers to have an unplanned revisit (5.0% versus 4.1%; OR=1.19; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.45). This association persisted (OR=1.24; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.53) after adjustment for potential confounders, including insurance status.

Conclusion

We found no difference in hospital admission rates between limited English proficiency patients and English-speaking patients. Yet limited English proficiency patients were 24% more likely to have an unplanned ED revisit within 72 hours, with an absolute difference of 0.9%, suggesting challenges in ED quality of care.

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and quality improvement (QI) activities often occur simultaneously within healthcare systems (HCSs). Embedded PCTs within HCSs are conducted to test interventions and provide evidence that may impact public health, health system operations, and quality of care. They are larger and more broadly generalizable than QI initiatives, and may generate what is considered high-quality evidence for potential use in care and clinical practice guidelines. QI initiatives often co-occur with ePCTs and address the same high-impact health questions, and this co-occurrence may dilute or confound the ability to detect change as a result of the ePCT intervention. During the design, pilot, and conduct phases of the large-scale NIH Collaboratory Demonstration ePCTs, many QI initiatives occurred at the same time within the HCSs. Although the challenges varied across the projects, some common, generalizable strategies and solutions emerged, and we share these as case studies. KEY LESSONS: Study teams often need to monitor, adapt, and respond to QI during design and the course of the trial. Routine collaboration between ePCT researchers and health systems stakeholders throughout the trial can help ensure research and QI are optimally aligned to support high-quality patient-centered care.