3160 - Language Translation Service Utilization among Limited English Proficiency Oncology Patients

05:00pm - 06:00pm PT

Hall F

Screen: 32

POSTER

Presenter(s)

Yen-Ruh Wuu, MD - Northwell Health, Lake Success, NY

Y. R. Wuu^1,2, B. Gui^1,2, A. Palaniappan^1,2, M. Graves³, H. Rahman^1,4, N. Adair^1,2, J. Pinsky^1,2, J. Hwang^1,2, and J. Z. Andrews^1,2; ¹Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, ²Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, ³Department of General Adult Psychiatry, New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, ⁴Biostatistics Unit, Office of Academic Affairs, New Hyde Park, NY

Purpose/Objective(s): Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience worse oncology outcomes, including lower screening rates and poorer treatment-related results. This study evaluated language translation service (LTS) utilization within our radiation oncology department and assessed physician perspectives on LTS use.

Materials/Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1500 randomly selected patient charts from 2011-2021, identifying LEP status and LTS use. Patient demographics (age, gender, race, preferred language, insurance type) were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the association between LTS use and age, race, and insurance type among LEP patients. A 2024 survey of 20 attending radiation oncologists assessed LTS usage patterns, perceived effectiveness, training adequacy, and perceived barriers.

Results: Of the 1500 charts, 102 (6.8%) patients had documented LEP, and 28 (27.5%) of these patients utilized LTS. Race was significantly associated with LTS use (p < 0.001). Specifically, LTS use was 18 times higher in Other/Multiracial patients compared to White patients (OR = 18.4, 95% CI: 5.4 - 62.7). While Black patients showed a 7% increased LTS use compared to White patients (OR = 1.07), this was not statistically significant. A trend towards increased LTS use with younger age was observed (p = 0.05). Insurance type was not associated with LTS use (p = 0.47).

The physician survey revealed video (90%) and phone (80%) as the most common LTS modalities, followed by in-person translators (30%), written materials (25%), and translation apps (5%). Physicians reported LTS use frequency as: always (25%), often (45%), sometimes (20%), and rarely (10%). LTS were considered effective (75%) or very effective (25%). Most physicians (65%) felt adequately trained, while 35% felt somewhat adequately trained, and 5% felt inadequately trained. Regarding LTS use during a treatment course, 15% used it only at consultation, 75% for every patient interaction, and 10% relied on family members (a potentially problematic practice). Poor connectivity and time constraints were identified as the primary barriers to LTS use.

Conclusion: This study highlights LTS as an effective tool for communication with LEP oncology patients. However, there's a significant gap in LTS utilization. While our chart review identified 6.8% of patients as LEP, institutional demographics report a 15.2% LEP prevalence, suggesting potential under-documentation of LEP status. Standardized procedures for assessing LEP status and facilitating LTS access are crucial to address disparities in oncologic care. Optimizing LTS utilization can improve patient safety, satisfaction, quality of care, and ultimately, outcomes. Areas for improvement include addressing inconsistencies between translators, improving training in medical terminology, and resolving connectivity issues.