Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience significant healthcare disparities. Clinicians are responsible for using and documenting their use of certified interpreters for patient encounters when appropriate. However, the data on interpreter use documentation in the emergency department (ED) is limited and variable. We sought to assess the effects of dot phrase and SmartPhrase implementation in an adult ED on the rates of documentation of interpreter use.

 

Methods: We conducted an anonymous survey asking emergency clinicians to self-report documentation of interpreter use. We also retrospectively reviewed documentation of interpreter-services use in ED charts at three time points: 1) pre-intervention baseline; 2) post-implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase shortcut; and 3) post-implementation of a SmartPhrase.

 

Results: Most emergency clinicians reported using an interpreter “almost always” or “often.” Our manual audit revealed that at baseline, interpreter use was documented in 35% of the initial clinician note, 4% of reassessments, and 0% of procedure notes; 52% of discharge instructions were written in the patients’ preferred languages. After implementation of the dot phrase and SmartPhrase, respectively, rates of interpreter-use documentation improved to 43% and 97% of initial clinician notes, 9% and 6% of reassessments, and 5% and 35% of procedure notes, with 62% and 64% of discharge instructions written in the patients’ preferred languages.

 

Conclusion: There was a discrepancy between reported rates of interpreter use and interpreter-use documentation rates. The latter increased with the implementation of a clinician-driven dot phrase and then a SmartPhrase built into the notes. Ensuring accurate documentation of interpreter use is an impactful step in language equity for LEP patients.

Background

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated an unprecedented volume of evolving clinical guidelines that strained existing clinical information systems and necessitated rapid innovation in emergency departments (EDs).

Objectives

Our team aimed to harness new COVID-19-related reliance on digital clinical support tools to re-envision how all clinical guidelines are stored and accessed in our ED.

Methods

We used a design-thinking approach including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing to develop a low-cost, homegrown clinical information hub: E*Drive. To measure impact, we compared web traffic on E*Drive to our legacy cloud-based folder system and conducted a survey of end-users using a validated health technology utilization instrument.

Results

Our final product, E*Drive, is a centralized clinical information hub storing everything from clinical guidelines to discharge resources. Clinical guidelines are standardized and housed within the high-traffic E*Drive platform to increase accessibility. Since launch, E*Drive has averaged 84 unique weekly users, compared with less than one weekly user on the legacy system. We surveyed 52 clinicians for a total response rate of 47%. Prior to the E*Drive rollout, 12.5% of ED clinicians felt confident accessing clinical information on the legacy system, whereas 76.6% of ED clinicians felt they could more easily access clinical information using E*Drive.

Conclusion

The COVID pandemic revealed vulnerabilities within our information dissemination system and presented an opportunity to improve clinical information delivery. Centralized web-based clinical information hubs designed around the clinician end-user experience can increase clinical guideline access in the ED.