Advertisement

Deficiencies in Provider-Reported Interpreter Use in a Clinical Trial Comparing Telephonic and Video Interpretation in a Pediatric Emergency Department

Published:September 02, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2020.08.001

      Background

      Professional interpretation improves health care quality and outcomes for limited English proficient (LEP) patients, yet interpreter use remains low even when interpretation is available remotely. The researchers analyzed the effect of remote interpretation (telephone or video) on pediatric emergency provider attitudes and behaviors around professional interpretation.

      Methods

      A cross-sectional questionnaire of pediatric emergency providers was conducted as part of a randomized trial of telephone vs. video interpretation with Spanish speaking LEP families. Providers recalled lapses of professional interpretation for medical communication (use of an ad hoc or no interpreter), if they had delayed or deferred communication due to the need for professional interpretation, and were asked about their satisfaction with the interpretation modality. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of professional interpreter use and communication behaviors were analyzed by self-report of study group assignment.

      Results

      One third of providers reported lapses of professional interpretation and many reported less frequent (45.6%) and deferred (34.6%) communication due to the need for interpretation. There was no significant difference in these outcomes between telephone and video assignment. Interpreter skill and technical difficulties were similar between groups. Providers assigned to telephone, compared to video, were more likely to be dissatisfied (p < 0.001) and to report that interpretation was ineffective (p = 0.002).

      Conclusion

      Despite access to interpretation, providers caring for patients enrolled in a study of professional interpreter modalities reported frequent lapses in professional interpretation and deferring or delaying communication because an interpreter was needed. Addressing barriers to remote interpreter use will improve quality of care and health equity for LEP patients.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • US Census Bureau
        Language Use in the United States: 2011.
        Ryan C. American Community Survey Reports, Aug 2013 (Accessed Aug 17, 2020)
        • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
        Improving Patient Safety Systems for Patients with Limited English Proficiency: A Guide for Hospitals.
        2020 (AHRQ Publication No. 12-0041. Sep 2012. Accessed Aug 17)
        • Flores G.
        The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review.
        Med Care Res Rev. 2005; 62: 255-299
        • Karliner LS
        • et al.
        Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature.
        Health Serv Res. 2007; 42: 727-754
        • Chen AH
        • Youdelman MK
        • Brooks J
        The legal framework for language access in healthcare settings: Title VI and beyond.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2007; 22: 362-367
        • Ramirez D
        • Engel KG
        • Tang TS
        Language interpreter utilization in the emergency department setting: a clinical review.
        J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008; 19: 352-362
        • Kuo DZ
        • et al.
        Pediatricians’ use of language services for families with limited English proficiency.
        Pediatrics. 2007; 119: e920-e927
        • Lee KC
        • et al.
        Resident physicians’ use of professional and nonprofessional interpreters: a national survey.
        JAMA. 2006 Sep 6; 296: 1050-1053
        • Gutman CK
        • et al.
        Professional interpreter use and discharge communication in the pediatric emergency department.
        Acad Pediatr. 2018; 18: 935-943
        • Hartford EA
        • et al.
        The use and impact of professional interpretation in a pediatric emergency department.
        Acad Pediatr. 2019; 19: 956-962
        • Flores G
        • et al.
        Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters.
        Pediatrics. 2003; 111: 6-14
        • Diamond LC
        • et al.
        Getting by: underuse of interpreters by resident physicians.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24: 256-262
        • Jeanmonod R
        • et al.
        The nature of emergency department interruptions and their impact on patient satisfaction.
        Emerg Med J. 2010; 27: 376-379
        • Hsieh E
        Not just “getting by”: factors influencing providers’ choice of interpreters.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30: 75-82
        • Masland MC
        • Lou C
        • Snowden L
        Use of communication technologies to cost-effectively increase the availability of interpretation services in healthcare settings.
        Telemed J E Health. 2010; 16: 739-745
        • Lion KC
        • et al.
        Effect of telephone vs video interpretation on parent comprehension, communication, and utilization in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA Pediatr. 2015; 169: 1117-1125
        • Rhodes KV
        • et al.
        Resuscitating the physician-patient relationship: emergency department communication in an academic medical center.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2004; 44: 262-267
        • Musso MW
        • et al.
        Patients’ comprehension of their emergency department encounter: a pilot study using physician observers.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2015; 65: 151-155.e4
        • Samuels-Kalow ME
        • et al.
        Parental language and return visits to the emergency department after discharge.
        Pediatr Emerg Care. 2017; 33: 402-404
        • Althubaiti A.
        Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods.
        J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016 May 4; 9: 211-217
        • Fiscella K
        • et al.
        Disparities in health care by race, ethnicity, and language among the insured: findings from a national sample.
        Med Care. 2002; 40: 52-59
        • Lion KC
        • et al.
        Association between language, serious adverse events, and length of stay among hospitalized children.
        Hosp Pediatr. 2013; 3: 219-225
        • Cohen AL
        • et al.
        Are language barriers associated with serious medical events in hospitalized pediatric patients?.
        Pediatrics. 2005; 116: 575-579