BACKGROUND: Limited English proficiency (LEP) is common among hospitalized patients and may impact care. We synthesized the literature comparing clinical outcomes after in-hospital care for English-proficient(EP) versus LEP patients. METHODS: This systematic review searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception through June 7, 2020, to identify research investigating clinical outcomes in patients receiving hospital-based care (in the emergency department, inpatient ward, surgical/procedural suite, or intensive care unit) that compared patients with LEP to an EP group. We assessed mortality, length of stay (LOS), readmissions/revisits, and complications. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met eligibility criteria. Study settings and populations were heterogeneous. Determination of primary language varied; a majority of studies (16/26) used patient self-report directly or via hospital records. Of 16 studies examining LEP and allcause mortality, 13 found no significant association. Of 17 studies measuring LOS, 9 found no difference, 4 found longer LOS, 3 found shorter LOS, and 1 had mixed LOS results among patients with LEP. Several investigations suggested that LOS differences may be mediated at the hospital level. Nine studies evaluated inpatient readmissions. Among patients with LEP, there was evidence for increased readmissions in the setting of chronic medical conditions such as heart failure, but no evidence for increased readmissions among cohorts undergoing surgeries/procedures or with acute medical conditions. Five studies evaluated complications or harm related to a hospitalization, and no differences were found between language groups. DISCUSSION: The research community lacks a standardized definition of LEP. Most studies did not find an association between English proficiency and mortality or complications. LOS findings were mixed and may be influenced at the hospital level. Differences in readmissions by language were concentrated in chronic medical conditions. Given the paucity of studies examining LEP populations, additional research is imperative.

BACKGROUND ICD codes are used to identify patients with appendicitis and to classify disease severity for reimbursement and research purposes. We sought to compare the accuracy of ICD-9 vs ICD-10 codes in classifying appendicitis as uncomplicated vs complicated (defined as perforated, necrotic, or abscess) compared with the clinical gold standard: surgeon characterization of the appendix in the operative report. STUDY DESIGN This is a retrospective review of operative reports and discharge ICD-9/10 codes for patients 18 years or older who underwent noninterval, nonincidental appendectomy from January 2012 to December 2019 at a tertiary referral center. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were calculated for ICD-9/10 codes to classify appendicitis as complicated when compared with surgeon description. Chi-square testing was used to compare agreement between ICD-9/10 codes and surgeon description. RESULTS A total of 1,585 patients underwent appendectomy. ICD-9 codes had higher sensitivity than ICD-10 codes for complicated appendicitis (sensitivity 0.84 and 0.54, respectively) and a similar positive predictive value (0.77 and 0.76, respectively). Overall, 91% of ICD-9 codes agreed with surgical description of disease, but 84.4% of ICD-10 codes agreed with surgical description (p < 0.01). Among cases classified as complicated by the surgeon, 84% (79/94) had an accurate ICD-9 code for complicated disease, but only 53.8% (57/106) of cases had an accurate ICD-10 code (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Compared with ICD-9 codes, ICD-10 codes were less accurate in characterizing severity of appendicitis. The ICD-10 coding schema does not provide an accurate representation of disease severity. Until this system is improved, significant caution is needed for people who rely on these data for billing, quality improvement, and research purposes.