Impact of Native Language, English Proficiency, and Language Concordance on Interpersonal Care During Evaluation of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Abstract

Background: High-quality interpersonal interactions between clinicians and patients can improve communication and reduce health disparities among patients with novice English proficiency (NEP). Yet, little is known about the impact of native language, NEP, and native language concordance on patient on perceptions of interpersonal care in the emergency department (ED). Objective: To determine the associations of native language, NEP, and native language concordance with patient perceptions of interpersonal care among patients undergoing evaluation for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the ED. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included 1000 patients undergoing evaluation for suspected ACS at an urban ED from 2013 to 2016. Main Measures: English- and Spanish-speaking patients were surveyed to identify native language, English proficiency (classified as advanced, intermediate, or novice), and perceived language of the treating ED clinician. Patient perceptions of interpersonal care were assessed using the Interpersonal Processes of Care (IPC) survey, a validated 18-item tool for assessing social-psychological domains of patient-clinician interactions. IPC scores ≤ 4 were categorized as sub-optimal (range, 1–5). The associations between native language, English proficiency, and native language concordance with sub-optimal communication were assessed using hierarchical logistic regression adjusted for all three language variables, sociodemographic characteristics, and depression. Key Results: Nine hundred thirty-three patients (48.0% native non-English-speaking, 55.7% Hispanic) completed the IPC; 522 (57.4%) perceived native language concordance. In unadjusted analyses, non-English native language (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.04–1.82) and NEP (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06–1.98) were associated with sub-optimal communication, whereas language concordance was protective (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46–0.81). In fully adjusted analyses, only language concordance remained significantly associated with sub-optimal communication (AOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42–0.93). Conclusions: This study suggests that perceived native language concordance acts as a protective factor for patient-clinician interpersonal care in the acute setting, regardless of native language or English proficiency.