Primary care utilization and mental health diagnoses among adult patients requiring interpreters: a retrospective cohort study

Published: July 11, 2012
Category: Bibliography > Papers
Authors: Breitkopf CR, Flynn PM, Haas LR, Kremers WK, Ridgeway JL, Wieland ML, Williams MD
Countries: United States
Language: null
Types: Population Health
Settings: Hospital, PCP

J Gen Intern Med 28:386-391.

Office of Women’s Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring interpreters may utilize the health care system differently or more frequently than patients not requiring interpreters; those with mental health issues may be particularly difficult to diagnose.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adult patients requiring interpreters exhibit different health care utilization patterns and rates of mental health diagnoses than their counterparts.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study examining patient visits to primary care (PC), express care (EC), or the emergency department (ED) of a large group practice within 1 year.

PATIENTS: Adult outpatients (n = 63,525) with at least one visit within the study interval and information regarding interpreter need.

MAIN MEASURES: Mean visit counts, counts of mental disorders, and somatic symptom diagnoses between patients requiring interpreters (IS patients) and not requiring interpreters (non-IS patients).

KEY RESULTS: IS patients (n = 1,566) had a higher mean number of visits overall (3.10 vs. 2.52), in PC (2.54 vs. 1.95), and in ED (0.53 vs. 0.44) than non-IS patients (all p  0.01). IS patients had a lower mean number of visits in EC than non-IS patients (0.03 vs. 0.13; p  0.01). Interpreter need remained a significant predictor of visit count n multivariate analyses incuding age, sex, insurance, and clinical complexity. A greater proportion of IS patients were high utilizers (10+ visits) than non-IS patients (3.6 % vs. 1.7 %; p  0.01). IS patients had a lower frequency of mental health diagnoses (13.9 % vs. 16.7 %), but a higher frequency of diagnoses recognized as potential somatic symptoms including diseases of the nervous (29.3 % vs. 24.2 %), digestive (22.6 % vs. 14.5 %), and musculskeletal systems (43.2 % vs. 34.5 %), and ill-defined conditions (61 % vs. 49.9 %), all p < 0.01.

CONCLUSIONS: IS patients visited PC more often than their counterparts and were more often high utilizers of care. Two sources of high utilization, mental health diagnoses and somatic symptoms, differed appreciably between our populations and may be contributing factors.

Comment in: What do we know about patient-clinician interactions with interpreters?Pérez-Stable EJ, Karliner LS. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Mar; 28(3):339-41.

PMID: 22782282
PMCID: PMC3579974

Resource Use,Diagnostic Certainty,High-Impact Chronic Conditions,Overall Disease Burden,United States,Adult,Aged,Gender,Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data,Health Services Needs and Demand/statistics & numerical data,Mental Disorders/therapy,Middle Aged,Minnesota/epidemiology,Outpatients/psychology,Patient Acceptance of Health Care/ethnology,Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data,Retrospective Studies

Please log in/register to access.

Log in/Register

LinkedIn Facebook Twitter

© The Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Johns Hopkins Health System.
All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement

Back to top