BACKGROUND:Little is known about the independent association of language barriers on postoperative process outcomes after craniotomies.OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association of limited English proficiency (LEP) with length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, hospitalization costs, and rate of 30-day readmission after craniotomy for brain tumor.METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent craniotomies for brain tumor from 2015 to 2019 at a high-volume neurosurgical center. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of LEP with discharge disposition and 30‐day readmission. Negative binomial regression was used to evaluate the association of LEP with LOS and hospitalization cost.RESULTS:Of the 2232 patients included, 7% had LEP. LEP patients had longer LOS (median [IQR] 5 [3-8] days vs 3 [2-5] days, P < .001), higher costs of hospitalization (median [IQR] $27 000 [$21 000-$36 000] vs $23 000 [$19 000-$30 000], P < .001), and were more likely to be discharged to skilled care facilities (37% vs 21%, P < .001) compared with English proficient patients. In multivariable models, the association between LEP and longer LOS (incidence rate ratio 1.11, 95% CI 1.00-1.24), higher hospitalization costs (incidence rate ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.20), and discharge to skilled care (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.13-2.72) remained after adjusting for confounders. There was no difference in 30-day readmission rates by language status.CONCLUSION:LEP is an independent risk factor for extended LOS, higher hospitalization cost, and discharge to skilled care in neurosurgical patients who undergo craniotomy for brain tumor. Future research should seek to understand mediators of these observed disparities.
Objective: To assess the feasibility of remotely training glaucoma patients to take a ten-session clustered virtual reality (VR) visual field test (VVP-10) at home, analyze results for test-retest variability, and assess correspondence with conventional perimetry. Design: Cross-sectional study. Subjects: 21 subjects with glaucoma were enrolled and included in the feasibility assessment of remote training. 36 eyes were used for test-retest analysis and determination of concordance with Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) testing. Methods: Subjects were provided with a mobile VR headset containing the VVP-10 test software and trained remotely via video conferencing. Subjects were instructed to complete ten sessions over a 14-day period. Main Outcome Measures: Feasibility was determined by the number of subjects who were able to independently complete VVP-10 over the 14-day period after one remote training session. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of average fraction seen across ten sessions and standard error (SE) for the mean were primary outcome measures for assessing test-retest variability. Correlation with HVF mean sensitivity (MS) across eyes, was a secondary outcome measure. Results: 20 subjects (95%) successfully completed the VVP-10 test series after one training session. ICC of VVP-10 was 0.95 (95% CI [0.92, 0.97]). Mean SE in units of fraction seen was 0.012. The Spearman correlations of VVP-10 average fraction seen versus HVF MS were 0.88 (95% CI [0.66, 0.99]) for moderate to advanced glaucoma eyes, and decreased to 0.68 (95% CI [0.29, 0.94]) when all eyes were included. Conclusions: Remote training of patients at home is feasible and subsequent remote clustered visual field testing using VVP-10 by patients on their own without any further interactions with caregivers or study staff was possible. At-home VVP-10 results demonstrated low test-retest variability. Future studies must be conducted to determine if VVP-10, taken at home as convenient for the patient, may be a viable supplement to provide equivalent or complementary results to that of standard in-clinic assessment of visual function in glaucoma.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.