Strategies to Improve Care in the Emergency Department for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Adults: a Systematic Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

The emergency department (ED) is an important gateway into the health system for people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds; their experience in the ED is likely to impact the way they access care in the future. Our review aimed to describe interventions used to improve ED health care delivery for adults from a CALD background.

Methods

An electronic search of four databases was conducted to identify empirical studies that reported interventions with a primary focus of improving ED care for CALD adults (aged ≥ 18 years), with measures relating to ED system performance, patient outcomes, patient experience, or staff experience. Studies published from inception to November 2022 were included. We excluded non-empirical studies, studies where an intervention was not provided in ED, papers where the full text was unavailable, or papers published in a language other than English. The intervention strategies were categorised thematically, and measures were tabulated.

Results

Following the screening of 3654 abstracts, 89 articles underwent full text review; 16 articles met the inclusion criteria. Four clear strategies for targeting action tailored to the CALD population of interest were identified: improving self-management of health issues, improving communication between patients and providers, adhering to good clinical practice, and building health workforce capacity.

Conclusions

The four strategies identified provide a useful framework for targeted action tailored to the population and outcome of interest. These detailed examples show how intervention design must consider intersecting socio-economic barriers, so as not to perpetuate existing disparity.

Registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022379584.

Related collections

Most cited references 43

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E. Mckenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2021)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 1728 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Perceived barriers to accessing mental health services among black and minority ethnic (BME) communities: a qualitative study in Southeast England

Anjum Memon, Katie Rutledge-Taylor, Lisa Mohebati … (2016)

Objective In most developed countries, substantial disparities exist in access to mental health services for black and minority ethnic (BME) populations. We sought to determine perceived barriers to accessing mental health services among people from these backgrounds to inform the development of effective and culturally acceptable services to improve equity in healthcare. Design and setting Qualitative study in Southeast England. Participants 26 adults from BME backgrounds (13 men, 13 women; aged >18 years) were recruited to 2 focus groups. Participants were identified through the registers of the Black and Minority Ethnic Community Partnership centre and by visits to local community gatherings and were invited to take part by community development workers. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify key themes about perceived barriers to accessing mental health services. Results Participants identified 2 broad themes that influenced access to mental health services. First, personal and environmental factors included inability to recognise and accept mental health problems, positive impact of social networks, reluctance to discuss psychological distress and seek help among men, cultural identity, negative perception of and social stigma against mental health and financial factors. Second, factors affecting the relationship between service user and healthcare provider included the impact of long waiting times for initial assessment, language barriers, poor communication between service users and providers, inadequate recognition or response to mental health needs, imbalance of power and authority between service users and providers, cultural naivety, insensitivity and discrimination towards the needs of BME service users and lack of awareness of different services among service users and providers. Conclusions People from BME backgrounds require considerable mental health literacy and practical support to raise awareness of mental health conditions and combat stigma. There is a need for improving information about services and access pathways. Healthcare providers need relevant training and support in developing effective communication strategies to deliver individually tailored and culturally sensitive care. Improved engagement with people from BME backgrounds in the development and delivery of culturally appropriate mental health services could facilitate better understanding of mental health conditions and improve access.

0 comments Cited 125 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Good practice in health care for migrants: views and experiences of care professionals in 16 European countries

Stefan Priebe, Sima Sandhu, Sónia Dias … (2011)

Background Health services across Europe provide health care for migrant patients every day. However, little systematic research has explored the views and experiences of health care professionals in different European countries. The aim of this study was to assess the difficulties professionals experience in their service when providing such care and what they consider constitutes good practice to overcome these problems or limit their negative impact on the quality of care. Methods Structured interviews with open questions and case vignettes were conducted with health care professionals working in areas with high proportion of migrant populations in 16 countries. In each country, professionals in nine primary care practices, three accident and emergency hospital departments, and three community mental health services (total sample = 240) were interviewed about their views and experiences in providing care for migrant patients, i.e. from first generation immigrant populations. Answers were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results Eight types of problems and seven components of good practice were identified representing all statements in the interviews. The eight problems were: language barriers, difficulties in arranging care for migrants without health care coverage, social deprivation and traumatic experiences, lack of familiarity with the health care system, cultural differences, different understandings of illness and treatment, negative attitudes among staff and patients, and lack of access to medical history. The components of good practice to overcome these problems or limit their impact were: organisational flexibility with sufficient time and resources, good interpreting services, working with families and social services, cultural awareness of staff, educational programmes and information material for migrants, positive and stable relationships with staff, and clear guidelines on the care entitlements of different migrant groups. Problems and good care components were similar across the three types of services. Conclusions Health care professionals in different services experience similar difficulties when providing care to migrants. They also have relatively consistent views on what constitutes good practice. The degree to which these components already are part of routine practice varies. Implementing good practice requires sufficient resources and organisational flexibility, positive attitudes, training for staff and the provision of information.