Limited English proficiency in the labor and delivery unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Limited English proficiency (LEP) impacts patient access to safe and comprehensive care during the antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum periods. In this review, we explore disparities in care delivery and outcomes that LEP women experience, and discuss the importance of providing language concordant care and using interpretation services appropriately. RECENT FINDINGS: The number of individuals with LEP is steadily increasing in the United States. Pregnant women with LEP suffer disparities in obstetric care and are at risk for postpartum depression, breastfeeding difficulties, and substandard newborn care after neonatal ICU discharge because of insufficient education. Addressing these issues requires the implementation of language concordant care and education, along with the utilization of medically trained interpreters. Although further evidence is needed, the authors support these interventions to improve patient satisfaction, decrease medical errors, and curtail misdiagnoses. SUMMARY: The pregnant woman with limited English proficiency is at risk of receiving suboptimal care and experiencing negative outcomes during the antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum periods. The use of medically trained interpreters and the provision of language concordant care, through workforce diversification and the creation of forms and educational materials in diverse languages, can improve patient safety, outcomes, and quality of care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".