Comparing acute hospital outcomes for people with post-stroke aphasia who do and do not require an interpreter

ABSTRACT

Background

People with communication differences are known to have poorer hospital outcomes than their peers. However, the combined impact of aphasia and cultural/linguistic differences on care and outcomes after stroke remains unknown.

Objectives

To investigate the association between cultural/linguistic differences, defined as those requiring an interpreter, and the provision of acute evidence-based stroke care and in-hospital outcomes for people with aphasia.

Methods

Cross-sectional, observational data collected in the Stroke Foundation National Audit of Acute Services (2017, 2019, 2021) were used. Multivariable regression models compared evidence-based care and in-hospital outcomes (e.g., length of stay) by interpreter status. Models were adjusted for sex, hospital location, stroke type and severity, with clustering by hospital.

Results

Among 3122 people with aphasia (median age 78, 49% female) from 126 hospitals, 193 (6%) required an interpreter (median age 78, 55% female). Compared to people with aphasia not requiring an interpreter, those requiring an interpreter had similar care access but less often had their mood assessed (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32, 0.76), were more likely to have physiotherapy assessments (96% vs 90% p = 0.011) and carer training (OR 4.83, 95% CI 1.70, 13.70), had a 2 day longer median length of stay (8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.003), and were less likely to be independent on discharge (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33, 0.89).

Conclusions

Some differences exist in the management and outcomes for people with post-stroke aphasia who require an interpreter. Further research to explore their needs and the practical issues underpinning their clinical care pathways is required.

KEYWORDS:

• Aphasia
• cultural diversity
• stroke
• hospital care

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the hospitals and clinicians participating in the National Stroke Audit Program.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethical approval

Ethics approval for data used in this project was granted through the Human Research Ethics Committee from Monash University (Project ID 35,037).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2023.2295128

Additional information

Funding

MLR acknowledges a National Health and Medical Research Council (NMHRC) Centres of Research Excellence Grant (GNT1153236).