Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Limited English Proficiency and Perioperative Patient-Centered Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Study context
- Population
- Perioperative patients with limited English proficiency10 studies
- Comparison
- Limited English proficiency vs English-speaking patients
- Outcome
- Poor perioperative care and outcomes
Methodological detailsPRISMA guidelines, 2 independent reviewers, 10 studies: 3 prospective cohort, 6 retrospective cohort, 1 cross-sectional; all high quality (Newcastle-Ottawa scale)
- PRISMA guidelines
- 2 independent reviewers
- 10 studies: 3 prospective cohort, 6 retrospective cohort, 1 cross-sectional; all high quality (Newcastle-Ottawa scale)
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Strong evidence: Professional medical interpreter (PMI) use or a language-concordant provider for limited-English proficiency (LEP) patients improves understanding of procedural consent
- LEP patients at risk of poorer postoperative pain control and poorer understanding of discharge instructions vs English-speaking patients
- Some (weak) evidence: LEP status not associated with differences in access to and receiving surgical preoperative evaluation
- No studies on LEP and access to anesthesiology-led preoperative evaluation
- Some evidence: LEP patients, especially without consistent PMI use, at risk of increased LOS, more complications and worse clinical outcomes
- Only 4 studies validated PMI use
Original publication
Limited English Proficiency and Perioperative Patient-Centered Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Anesth Analg. Published 6 September 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →