(799) Language Barriers and Obstetric Hemorrhage: Comparing Outcomes by Interpreter Requirement

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 3,199 patients with PPH (≥1000 mL blood loss) who delivered at a single tertiary care center from 2020-2023. Patients were stratified by interpreter requirement at admission. T-tests and chi-square analyses compared transfusion timing and volume, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes between groups.

Results:
Of patients with PPH, 537 (16.8%) required an interpreter. Patients who required an interpreter were slightly younger (30.8 vs 31.7 years, p=0.002), more likely to identify as Hispanic (63.5% vs 18.7%), and more racially diverse. Interpreter requirement was associated with lower average blood loss (1615 vs 1711 mL, p=0.004) and lower NICU admission rates (16.6% vs 23.1%, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in transfusion rate (10.8% vs 9.0%, p=0.19), number of units transfused, or time to administration of uterotonic medications. ICU admission (0.9% vs 1.7%, p=0.18) and cesarean delivery (81.6% vs 78.8%, p=0.15) rates were also similar.

Conclusion:
Among patients with PPH, interpreter requirement was not associated with clinically significant differences in blood loss, transfusion rates, or maternal ICU admission. These findings suggest that patients with LEP may receive comparable hemorrhage care once bleeding is identified. Further investigation is ongoing to evaluate whether language barriers impact timing of care escalation and length of stay after obstetric hemorrhage.