Association between language discordance and unplanned hospital readmissions or emergency department revisits: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Studies conflict about whether language discordance increases rates of hospital readmissions or emergency department (ED) revisits for adult and paediatric patients. The literature was systematically reviewed to investigate the association between language discordance and hospital readmission and ED revisit rates. DATA SOURCES: Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar on 21 January 2021, and updated on 27 October 2022. No date or language limits were used. STUDY SELECTION: Articles that (1) were peer-reviewed publications; (2) contained data about patient or parental language skills and (3) included either unplanned hospital readmission or ED revisit as one of the outcomes, were screened for inclusion. Articles were excluded if: unavailable in English; contained no primary data or inaccessible in a full-text form (eg, abstract only). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-extension for scoping reviews guidelines. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. We performed a meta-analysis of 18 adult studies for 28-day or 30-day hospital readmission; 7 adult studies of 30-day ED revisits and 5 paediatric studies of 72-hour or 7-day ED revisits. We also conducted a stratified analysis by whether access to interpretation services was verified/provided for the adult readmission analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Odds of hospital readmissions within a 28-day or 30-day period and ED revisits within a 7-day period. RESULTS: We generated 4830 citations from all data sources, of which 49 (12 paediatric; 36 adult; 1 with both adult and paediatric) were included. In our meta-analysis, language discordant adult patients had increased odds of hospital readmissions (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18). Among the 4 studies that verified interpretation services for language discordant patient-clinician interactions, there was no difference in readmission (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05), while studies that did not specify interpretation service access/use found higher odds of readmission (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.22). Adult patients with a non-dominant language preference had higher odds of ED revisits (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.004 to 1.152) compared with adults with a dominant language preference. In 5 paediatric studies, children of parents language discordant with providers had higher odds of ED revisits at 72 hours (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19) and 7 days (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03) compared with patients whose parents had language concordant communications. DISCUSSION: Adult patients with a non-dominant language preference have more hospital readmissions and ED revisits, and children with parents who have a non-dominant language preference have more ED revisits. Providing interpretation services may mitigate the impact of language discordance and reduce hospital readmissions among adult patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022302871.