Doctors Often Overrate How Well They Speak a Second Language
Communicating with patients who do not speak English is a challenge facing all health care providers. New research shows that even those physicians who say they are fluent in a second language may be overestimating their actual skills.
In an effort to ensure equal care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services calls for health organizations to provide patients who have limited English proficiency (LEP) access to an interpreter or a bilingual staff person. But just how well does the health provider speak the second language?
“Part of the problem is that there are no standards for how bilingual staff are assessed, so it’s left to organizations to decide for themselves,” said lead author Lisa Diamond, MD, of the Immigrant Health and Cancer Disparities Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
The study, appearing in Health Services Research, takes a look at how physicians at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) in the San Francisco Bay area describe their language skills.
Patients can search for a physician on the PAMF website by languages spoken, such as Spanish and Chinese. The old site categorized a doctor’s non-English proficiency as “basic,” “medical/conversational” or “fluent.”
However, in 2009, PAMF instituted a new, adapted version of a scale known as the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR), which has a long history of use by the U.S. government, private and academic organizations. The ILR rates proficiency in five levels with explanations of each: poor, fair, good, very good and excellent.
The Interagency Language Roundtable is an unfunded organization comprising various agencies of the United States Federal Government with the purpose of coordinating and sharing information on foreign language activities at the federal level.
The ILR’s primary function is to act as an avenue for the varying participating federal agencies to keep abreast of modern methods and technology regarding the teaching of language, the use of language, and any other language related issues.
After the new scale was introduced, 258 (75 percent) of the physicians changed their rating on the website-31 who had considered themselves “fluent” downgraded to “good” or “fair” on the ILR scale. And just 11 percent considered their proficiency as “excellent.” Seventeen percent used “very good” and 38 percent said they were “fair.” Being “fair” was defined as “…can get the gist of most everyday conversations but has difficulty communicating about health care concepts.”
“This is a very tricky area as this demonstrates how many providers overestimate their proficiency in another language,” said Joseph Betancourt, MD, director of the Disparities Solutions Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “This can lead to miscommunication and even medical errors.”
Developing cultural proficiency and linguistically appropriate services in your practice is the right thing to do, and there is also growing pressure to do so:
- The National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care (CLAS Standards), issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority Health, have focused greater attention on these issues.
- The Office for Civil Rights’ Policy Guidance on Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination as it Affects Persons with Limited English Proficiency focuses on eliminating language barriers to care.
AAFP members appreciate how addressing language barriers can influence medical outcomes by improving access and the quality of services provided, reducing medical errors and increasing patients’ adherence with care regimens. Not only can providing this appropriate and needed interpretation service to your patients reduce liability and malpractice claims, it can also contribute to the elimination of racial and ethnic disparities in health care.
Betancourt added that while he wasn’t familiar with the ILR scale, it “seems like a promising and necessary tool to objectively measure provider fluency in other languages.”
Diamond added, “At this point, we don’t know for sure which method of assessing non-English language proficiency is the most accurate and, thus, can’t set standards yet. Identifying such a tool is part of the focus of my current research.”
TERMS OF USE: This story is protected by copyright. When reproducing any material, including interview excerpts, attribution to the Health Behavior News Service, part of the Center for Advancing Health, is required.
# # #
Health Services Research is the official journal of the AcademyHealth and is published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. on behalf of the Health Research and Educational Trust. For information, contact Jennifer Shaw, HSR Business Manager at (312) 422-2646 or .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
“Does This Doctor Speak My Language?” Improving the Characterization of Physician Non-English Language Skills
Lisa C. Diamond, Harold S. Luft, Sukyung Chung and Elizabeth A. Jacobs
###
KEY POINTS
* When doctors switched to a more nuanced scale for assessing their proficiency in a language other than English, many of them downgraded their self-rated fluency.
* More detailed and accurate language fluency scales can help patients make better decisions about which doctors to visit.
By Glenda Fauntleroy, Contributing Writer
Research Source: Health Services Research
###
Source: Health Behavior News Service