Health Policy Research Center-Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA.
Boston University School of Public Health, USA.
Disabil Health J. 2023 Jan;16(1):101397. doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2022.101397. Epub 2022 Oct 19.
Approximately 16.2 million Americans ages 18 and older (5.7%) report being deaf or having serious difficulty hearing. Hearing loss impedes effective communication during clinical encounters putting patients' safety at risk. A large fraction of Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits addresses whether providers offered auxiliary aids and services required to ensure effective communication.
Examine use of different hearing accommodations for deaf or hard of hearing patients by U.S. physicians.
We surveyed randomly selected physicians nationwide representing 7 specialties about their reported use of 8 types of accommodations when communicating with adult outpatients who are deaf or have significant difficulty hearing, even with hearing aids (overall weighted response rate = 61.0%). We performed a descriptive analysis of responses, using survey sampling weights.
Among the 526 physicians in this analysis, most were male, white, urban, and practiced in community-based practices. Overall, 81.5% (SE = 1.9) reported that patients with significant hearing limitations get worse quality health care than others. Among participants, 49.8% (2.4) reported never using an in-person sign language interpreter hired by the practice, and 63.2% (2.4) never use video remote interpreting. In contrast, 30.7% (2.1) always and 29.8% (2.2) usually speak louder and slower to patients with significant hearing limitations. None of the 8 accommodations were always or usually used by 8.9% (1.3) of participants.
More than 32 years after the Americans with Disabilities Act, most physicians do not offer accommodations sufficient to ensure effective communication with adult outpatients with significant hearing limitations.
约有 1620 万 18 岁及以上的美国人(5.7%)报告称自己耳聋或存在严重听力障碍。听力损失会影响临床就诊期间的有效沟通,从而使患者的安全面临风险。美国残疾人法案诉讼的很大一部分涉及到提供者是否提供了确保有效沟通所需的辅助设备和服务。
检查美国医生为聋人或听力严重障碍患者使用不同的听力辅助设备的情况。
我们随机调查了全美 7 个专业的医生,询问他们在与成年门诊患者(即使佩戴助听器仍存在严重听力障碍)沟通时使用 8 种听力辅助设备的情况,这些患者为聋人或听力严重障碍患者。我们对使用不同听力辅助设备的情况进行了描述性分析,并使用了调查抽样权重。
在这项分析中的 526 名医生中,大多数是男性、白人、居住在城市、在社区实践中工作。总的来说,81.5%(SE=1.9)的医生报告称,听力严重受限的患者比其他人接受的医疗质量更差。在参与者中,49.8%(2.4)的医生从未使用过由实践雇佣的现场手语翻译,63.2%(2.4)的医生从未使用过视频远程口译。相比之下,30.7%(2.1)的医生总是和 29.8%(2.2)的医生通常会对听力严重受限的患者说话更大声、更慢。在 8 种听力辅助设备中,没有一种设备会被 8.9%(1.3)的参与者始终或通常使用。
在《美国残疾人法案》通过 32 多年后,大多数医生没有提供足够的辅助设备来确保与有严重听力障碍的成年门诊患者进行有效的沟通。