Use of Pediatric Primary Care Telephone Advice by Families Whose Usual Language Spoken at Home Is Not English.

Language barriers and access to telephone advice have been shown to affect patient care. Less is known about access to telephone advice for families whose usual language is not English. The objective was to characterize the use of pediatric primary care telephone advice by families based on usual language spoken at home. A total of 277 surveys were completed by families presenting for sick visits at an academic pediatric primary care practice. No meaningful differences in the use of telephone advice when a child was sick were found by language category. Overall, 80.5% reported calling the clinic first when the clinic was open, but 77.6% went to the emergency department when the clinic closed. In conclusion, use of telephone advice was similar among families regardless of usual language. Most families reported going to the emergency department when the clinic was closed. More research is needed to identify barriers to the use of telephone advice, particularly after hours.

Use of Language Services for Telephone Advice by Limited English Proficiency Families in a Pediatric Primary Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: Families limited in English proficiency (LEP) often do not receive appropriate medical language services, resulting in health disparities. Little is known about the use and effectiveness of language services provided via telephone when families call for medical advice. OBJECTIVE: To characterize language service provision to LEP families calling for medical advice in a pediatric primary care setting. METHODS: A self-administered survey was given to parents of children presenting for sick visits at an urban academic pediatric primary care practice. RESULTS: 277 out of 300 surveys were completed, 92% in English and 8% in Spanish. 7% (19/271) of those who answered the language proficiency question reported LEP (spoke English "not well," or "not at all"). Among LEP parents, 68% calling for advice during clinic hours received appropriate language services (a trained interpreter or a bilingual provider). 53% received these services when calling after hours. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of LEP families seeking telephone advice from their pediatric primary care office received adequate language services. Future research should identify barriers to providing telephone language services to LEP families.

Improving quality in stroke rehabilitation.

Given the numerous quality improvement (QI) initiatives that have been undertaken in various medical fields, it is clear that inpatient rehabilitation services, particularly those geared toward stroke rehabilitation, can also benefit from these programs. To effectively evaluate the quality of rehabilitation services, indicators measuring structure, process, and outcomes must be included as part of any QI initiative. In addition to measuring quality, these indicators can be used to describe and address disparities in the provision of rehabilitation services on the basis of race, socioeconomic status, geography, disability status, and a multitude of other demographic factors. To improve quality and address health disparities associated with stroke rehabilitation, QI initiatives must be scientifically driven, continuing the trend of evidence-based practice in medicine. They must also remain flexible, because the science of quality improvement is an ever-changing field. It will be a challenge to convince physicians and other health care professionals that QI initiatives are a worthwhile investment of their limited time and resources, and further research is required to move the field of quality in stroke rehabilitation forward.