Cargando…
Language-Concordant Primary Care Physicians for a Diverse Population: The View from California
Purpose: The population with limited English proficiency (LEP) in California is growing. We sought to determine whether enough primary care physicians (PCPs) have the language skills to meet patient needs. Methods: The authors determined the number of PCPs who self-report proficiency in the five mos...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626968/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31312781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/heq.2019.0035 |
Sumario: | Purpose: The population with limited English proficiency (LEP) in California is growing. We sought to determine whether enough primary care physicians (PCPs) have the language skills to meet patient needs. Methods: The authors determined the number of PCPs who self-report proficiency in the five most common non-English languages spoken in California (Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, Tagalog, and Vietnamese) using Medical Board of California data from 2013 to 2015. The authors estimated LEP populations during 2011–2015 using Census data. They calculated PCP supply (the ratio of PCPs/100,000 LEP individuals) compared to a federal standard to judge adequacy. They performed a sensitivity analysis adjusting the percentage of LEP patients in a bilingual physicians' practice from 100% to the percentage of LEP individuals in California who spoke that language. Results: Of 19,310 PCPs in California, 15,933 (83%) provided information about languages they speak. There were 5,203 (33%) Spanish-, 486 (3%) Cantonese-, 986 (6%) Mandarin-, 956 (6%) Tagalog-, and 671 (4%) Vietnamese-speaking PCPs. PCP supply, compared to a federal standard, was adequate if we assumed that bilingual PCPs only care for LEP patients. However, if one assumes the number of LEP patients in a PCP's practice reflects the percentage in the general population, there is a large PCP undersupply for all languages. Conclusion: Estimates of access to language-concordant PCPs for LEP individuals are sensitive to assumptions about the percentage of LEP patients in a PCP's panel. Ensuring language-concordant access will require deliberate effort to match LEP patients with bilingual PCPs. |
---|