Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Limited English proficiency patients are required under federal law to receive language-concordant care, yet they still receive substandard discharge instructions compared to English-speaking patients. We aimed to summarize the interventions carried out to improve discharge instructions in the limited English proficiency population.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of academic and gray literature from the United States using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for studies to improve discharge communication.
RESULTS: Of the 3330 studies, 19 studies met the criteria. Core types of interventions included written interventions alone, educational interventions alone, written and educational interventions, audio and visual interventions, and other types of interventions. Even among the same core types of interventions, there were differences in types of interventions, outcomes examined, and results.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of included interventions that studied satisfaction as an outcome measure showed improvement, while the other outcomes were not improved or worsened. More rigorous methodology and community involvement are necessary to further analyze discharge interventions for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP).
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of academic and gray literature from the United States using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL for studies to improve discharge communication.
RESULTS: Of the 3330 studies, 19 studies met the criteria. Core types of interventions included written interventions alone, educational interventions alone, written and educational interventions, audio and visual interventions, and other types of interventions. Even among the same core types of interventions, there were differences in types of interventions, outcomes examined, and results.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of included interventions that studied satisfaction as an outcome measure showed improvement, while the other outcomes were not improved or worsened. More rigorous methodology and community involvement are necessary to further analyze discharge interventions for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP).
摘要：
背景：根据联邦法律，要求英语水平有限的患者接受语言协调的护理，然而，与说英语的患者相比，他们仍然收到不合格的出院指示。我们旨在总结在英语水平有限的人群中为改善出院指导而采取的干预措施。
方法：我们对来自美国的学术和灰色文献进行了范围审查，使用系统审查的首选报告项目和范围审查指南的荟萃分析方案。我们搜索了PubMed,Embase,和CINAHL用于改善出院沟通的研究。
结果：在3330项研究中，19项研究符合标准。干预的核心类型包括书面干预，仅教育干预措施，书面和教育干预，音频和视觉干预，以及其他类型的干预措施。即使在相同的核心干预类型中，干预措施的类型有所不同，检查的结果，和结果。
结论：将满意度作为结果指标进行研究的大多数干预措施显示出改善，而其他结局没有改善或恶化。需要更严格的方法和社区参与，以进一步分析英语水平有限（LEP）患者的出院干预措施。
方法：我们对来自美国的学术和灰色文献进行了范围审查，使用系统审查的首选报告项目和范围审查指南的荟萃分析方案。我们搜索了PubMed,Embase,和CINAHL用于改善出院沟通的研究。
结果：在3330项研究中，19项研究符合标准。干预的核心类型包括书面干预，仅教育干预措施，书面和教育干预，音频和视觉干预，以及其他类型的干预措施。即使在相同的核心干预类型中，干预措施的类型有所不同，检查的结果，和结果。
结论：将满意度作为结果指标进行研究的大多数干预措施显示出改善，而其他结局没有改善或恶化。需要更严格的方法和社区参与，以进一步分析英语水平有限（LEP）患者的出院干预措施。
