Access to New Clinic Appointments for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Racial and ethnic disparities have been observed in the outpatient visit rates for specialist care, including cancer care; however, little is known about patients' experience at the critical step of attempting to access new clinic appointments for cancer care. Objective: To determine simulated English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and Mandarin-speaking patient callers' ability to access new clinic appointments for 3 cancer types (colon, lung, and thyroid cancer) that disproportionately impact Hispanic and Asian populations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional audit study was conducted between November 2021 and March 2023 using 479 clinic telephone numbers that were provided by the hospital general information personnel at 143 hospitals located across 12 US states. Using standardized scripts, trained research personnel assigned to the roles of English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and Mandarin-speaking patients called the telephone number for a clinic that treats colon, lung, or thyroid cancer to inquire about a new clinic appointment. Data analysis was conducted from June to September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was whether the simulated patient caller was able to access cancer care (binary variable, yes or no), which was defined to include being provided with a clinic appointment date or scheduling information. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors independently associated with simulated patient callers being able to access cancer care. Results: Of 985 total calls (399 English calls; 302 Spanish calls; 284 Mandarin calls), simulated patient callers accessed cancer care in 409 calls (41.5%). Differences were observed based on language type, with simulated English-speaking patient callers significantly more likely to access cancer care compared with simulated Spanish-speaking and Mandarin-speaking patient callers (English, 245 calls [61.4%]; Spanish, 110 calls [36.4%]; Mandarin, 54 calls [19.0%]; P < .001). A substantial number of calls ended due to linguistic barriers (291 of 586 Spanish or Mandarin calls [49.7%]) and workflow barriers (239 of 985 calls [24.3%]). Compared with English-speaking simulated patient callers, the odds of accessing cancer care were lower for Spanish-speaking simulated patient callers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46) and Mandarin-speaking simulated patient callers (aOR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.09-0.19). Compared with contacting clinics affiliated with teaching hospitals, callers had lower odds of accessing cancer care when contacting clinics that were affiliated with nonteaching hospitals (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40-0.70). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional audit study, simulated patient callers encountered substantial barriers when attempting to access clinic appointments for cancer care. These findings suggest that interventions focused on mitigating these barriers are necessary to increase access to cancer care for all patients.

Hidden Disparities: How Language Influences Patients' Access to Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with limited English proficiency, a vulnerable patient population, remain understudied in the literature addressing cancer disparities. Although it is well documented that language discordance between patients and physicians negatively impacts the quality of patient care, little is known about how patients' preferred spoken language impacts their access to cancer care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2021 and June 2022, we conducted an audit study of 144 hospitals located across 12 demographically diverse states. Using a standardized script, trained investigators assigned to the roles of English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and Mandarin-speaking patients called the hospital general information telephone line seeking to access care for 3 cancer types that disproportionately impact Hispanic and Asian populations (colon, lung, and thyroid cancer). Primary outcome was whether the simulated patient caller was provided with the next steps to access cancer care, defined as clinic number or clinic transfer. We used chi-square tests and logistic regression analysis to test for associations between the primary outcome and language type, region type, hospital teaching status, and cancer care requested. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine factors associated with simulated patient callers being provided the next steps. RESULTS: Of the 1,296 calls, 52.9% (n=686) resulted in simulated patient callers being provided next steps to access cancer care. Simulated non-English-speaking (vs English-speaking) patient callers were less likely to be provided with the next steps (Mandarin, 27.5%; Spanish, 37.7%; English, 93.5%; P<.001). Multivariable logistic regression found significant associations of the primary outcome with language spoken (Mandarin: odds ratio [OR], 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01-0.04] and Spanish: OR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.02-0.06] vs English) and hospital teaching status (nonteaching: OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56] vs teaching). CONCLUSIONS: Linguistic disparities exist in access to cancer care for non-English-speaking patients, emphasizing the need for focused interventions to mitigate systems-level communication barriers.