Abstract Background: Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is a significant barrier to equitable healthcare. Persons with a cancer diagnosis who experience LEP face disparities in communication that can lead to misunderstanding of critical medical information, decreased engagement with essential digital health tools, increased risk for treatment non-adherence, and negatively impact enrollment in cancer clinical trials. The national CLAS Standards note that LEP can be standardly bridged in the clinical setting by engaging a certified medical interpreter or a clinician proficient in the patient’s language either in-person or virtually. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (SKCCC) at Thomas Jefferson University serves a diverse patient population over multiple clinical sites. At its location in central Philadelphia (CC), approximately 13% experience LEP. Methods: To assess our efforts at addressing LEP, we conducted a retrospective chart review to evaluate how often patient language services are documented in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Persons with a cancer diagnosis who self-identified their language preference as a language other than English and who had a clinic visit in CC between January 1 and March 31, 2025 were included in this analysis. Clinical notes from the most recent clinic visit were reviewed for documentation of interpreter services utilization. Results: Of the 5,054 clinical visits during this timeframe, 326 (6.5%) documented a language preference other than English. The most common languages preferred included Mandarin (25.5%), Spanish (23.9%), Cantonese (17.5%), Vietnamese (6.1%), and Indonesian (4.9%). Interpreter utilization was documented in the clinic notes for 156 (47.9%) patient encounters. Of those documented, GLOBO, the preferred telecom translation service used at SKCCC, was utilized 57 (36.5%) times, an in-person translator 42 (26.9%) times, and by a physician proficient in the patient’s preferred language 13 (8.3%) times. A family member or friend of the patient was used as interpreter on 9 (5.8%) occasions, and interpreter type was not specified on 35 (22.4%) occasions. Conclusion: These data may reflect incomplete documentation of interpreter utilization, situations where the patient declined interpreter services, or lack of interpreter utilization. The findings from this analysis will inform a quality improvement initiative to enhance language access for persons with a language preference other than English receiving care at SKCCC. Citation Format: Ana Maria Lopez, John Kim, Julia Witkowski, Nikita Nikita, Olivia Trachtenberg. Supporting language access for persons with a cancer diagnosis abstract. In: Proceedings of the 18th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities; 2025 Sep 18-21; Baltimore, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2025;34(9 Suppl):Abstract nr C074.
López et al. (Thu,) studied this question.