Health Literacy Initiatives and Lessons Learned within Public Health Agencies.

Located in the northeastern part of the United States, New York State is extremely diverse - from the perspectives of culture, history, language, geography, economy, to name a few. Spreading across approximately 55,000 miles and taking into consideration the diversity of health needs across the state, the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) is dedicated to improving the health of all New Yorkers. This is evident in a Prevention Agenda which is New York State's health improvement plan, the blueprint for state and local actions to improve the health and well-being of all New Yorkers, and to promote health equity in all populations who experience disparities [1]. In addition, strategies for successful partnerships include long standing relationships with local health departments, community health centers, hospital systems, community-based organizations, individuals and groups who rely on the State Department of Health for quality services to achieve health equity and eliminate health disparities. This report provides an overview of previous, current, and forthcoming health literacy activities spearheaded by the New York State Department of Health Office of Minority Health and Health Disparities Prevention that support the importance of effective communication and health literacy across the Department.

Communication with Diverse Patients: Addressing Culture and Language.

Effective communication is key when providing quality health care. The dynamics of communication within the health care team and with the patient and family can be challenging. These challenges stem from the sharing of complex information, highly emotional topics, and health literacy barriers. Linguistic and cultural barriers can further aggravate these challenges. This section provides an overview of linguistic and cultural challenges related to patient-provider communication, strategies for effective communication with patients with limited English Proficiency via the use of interpreter services, and tips for how to teach these skills to health care providers.

Patient safety after implementation of a coproduced family centered communication programme: multicenter before and after intervention study

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical errors, family experience, and communication processes improved after implementation of an intervention to standardize the structure of healthcare provider-family communication on family centered rounds. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter before and after intervention study. SETTING: Pediatric inpatient units in seven North American hospitals, 17 December 2014 to 3 January 2017. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to study units (3106 admissions, 13171 patient days); 2148 parents or caregivers, 435 nurses, 203 medical students, and 586 residents. INTERVENTION: Families, nurses, and physicians coproduced an intervention to standardize healthcare provider-family communication on ward rounds ("family centered rounds"), which included structured, high reliability communication on bedside rounds emphasizing health literacy, family engagement, and bidirectional communication; structured, written real-time summaries of rounds; a formal training programme for healthcare providers; and strategies to support teamwork, implementation, and process improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical errors (primary outcome), including harmful errors (preventable adverse events) and non-harmful errors, modeled using Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations clustered by site; family experience; and communication processes (eg, family engagement on rounds). Errors were measured via an established systematic surveillance methodology including family safety reporting. RESULTS: The overall rate of medical errors (per 1000 patient days) was unchanged (41.2 (95% confidence interval 31.2 to 54.5) pre-intervention v 35.8 (26.9 to 47.7) post-intervention, P=0.21), but harmful errors (preventable adverse events) decreased by 37.9% (20.7 (15.3 to 28.1) v 12.9 (8.9 to 18.6), P=0.01) post-intervention. Non-preventable adverse events also decreased (12.6 (8.9 to 17.9) v 5.2 (3.1 to 8.8), P=0.003). Top box (eg, "excellent") ratings for six of 25 components of family reported experience improved; none worsened. Family centered rounds occurred more frequently (72.2% (53.5% to 85.4%) v 82.8% (64.9% to 92.6%), P=0.02). Family engagement 55.6% (32.9% to 76.2%) v 66.7% (43.0% to 84.1%), P=0.04) and nurse engagement (20.4% (7.0% to 46.6%) v 35.5% (17.0% to 59.6%), P=0.03) on rounds improved. Families expressing concerns at the start of rounds (18.2% (5.6% to 45.3%) v 37.7% (17.6% to 63.3%), P=0.03) and reading back plans (4.7% (0.7% to 25.2%) v 26.5% (12.7% to 7.3%), P=0.02) increased. Trainee teaching and the duration of rounds did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall errors were unchanged, harmful medical errors decreased and family experience and communication processes improved after implementation of a structured communication intervention for family centered rounds coproduced by families, nurses, and physicians. Family centered care processes may improve safety and quality of care without negatively impacting teaching or duration of rounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320175.

Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance.

Importance: Medical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection. Objective: To compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Error and AE rates. Results: Overall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Families provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.

Changes in research on language barriers in health care since 2003: A cross-sectional review study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to mitigate language barriers is becoming increasingly important for health care providers around the world. Language barriers adversely affect patients in their access to health services; comprehension and adherence; quality of care; and patient and provider satisfaction. In 2003, the United States (US) government made a major change in national policy guidance that significantly affected limited English proficient patients' ability to access language services. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this paper are to describe the state of the language barriers literature inside and outside the US since 2003 and to compare the research that was conducted before and after a national policy change occurred in the US. We hypothesize that language barrier research would increase inside and outside the US but that the increase in research would be larger inside the US in response to this national policy change. METHODS: We reviewed the research literature on language barriers in health care and conducted a cross sectional analysis by tabulating frequencies for geographic location, language group, methodology, research focus and specialty and compared the literature before and after 2003. RESULTS: Our sample included 136 studies prior to 2003 and 426 studies from 2003 to 2010. In the 2003-2010 time period there was a new interest in studying the providers' perspective instead of or in addition to the patients' perspective. The methods remained similar between periods with greater than 60% of studies being descriptive and 12% being interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There was an increase in research on language barriers inside and outside the US and we believe this was larger due to the change in the national policy. We suggest that researchers worldwide should move away from simply documenting the existence of language barriers and should begin to focus their research on documenting how language concordant care influences patient outcomes, providing evidence for interventions that mitigate language barriers, and evaluating the cost effectiveness of providing language concordant care to patients with language barriers. We think this is possible if funding agencies around the world begin to request proposals for these types of research studies. Together, we can begin document meaningful ways to provide high quality health care to patients with language barriers.