Patient satisfaction of telephone or video interpreter services compared with in-person services: a systematic review*
Corey Joseph A B , Marie Garruba A and Angela Melder AA Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia. Email: Marie.Garrubba@monashhealth.org; angela.melder@monashhealth.org
B Corresponding author. Email: corey.joseph@monashhealth.org
Australian Health Review 42(2) 168-177 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH16195
Submitted: 2 September 2016 Accepted: 17 January 2017 Published: 7 March 2017
Abstract
Objective This review was conducted to identify and synthesise the evidence around the use of telephone and video interpreter services compared with in-person services in healthcare.
Methods A systematic search of articles published in the English language was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Joanna Briggs, Google Scholar and Google. Search terms included ‘interpreter’, ‘patient satisfaction’, ‘consumer satisfaction’ and ‘client satisfaction’. Any study that did not compare in-person interpreter services with either telephone or video interpreter services was excluded from analysis. Studies were screened for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers, using criteria established a priori. Data were extracted via a custom form and synthesised.
Results The database search yielded 196 studies, eight of which were included in the present review. The search using an Internet search engine did not identify any relevant studies. Of the studies included, five used telephone and three used video interpreter services. All studies, except one, compared levels of satisfaction regarding in-person interpretation and telephone or video interpretation. One study compared satisfaction of two versions of video interpretation. There is evidence of higher satisfaction with hospital-trained interpreters compared with ad hoc (friend or family) or telephone interpreters. There is no difference in satisfaction between in-person interpreting, telephone interpreting or interpretation provided by the treating bilingual physician. Video interpreting has the same satisfaction as in-person interpreting, regardless of whether the patient and the physician are in the same room. Higher levels of satisfaction were reported for trained telephone interpreters than for in-person interpreters or an external telephone interpreter service.
Conclusions Current evidence does not suggest there is one particular mode of interpreting that is superior to all others. This review is limited in its translational capacity given that most studies were from the US and in a Spanish-speaking cohort.
What is known about the topic? Access to interpreters has been shown to positively affect patients who are not proficient in speaking the local language of the health service.
What does this paper add? This paper adds to the literature by providing a comprehensive summary of patient satisfaction when engaging several different types of language interpreting services used in healthcare.
What are the implications for practitioners? This review provides clear information for health services on the use of language interpreter services and patient satisfaction. The current body of evidence does not indicate a superior interpreting method when patient satisfaction is concerned.
References
[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011 Census QuickStats. 2011. Available at: http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0 [verified 19 May 2016].[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Reflecting a nation: stories from the 2011 Census. Canberra: ABS; 2012.
[3] Jacobs EA, Shepard DS, Suaya JA, Stone E-L. Overcoming language barriers in health care: costs and benefits of interpreter services. Am J Public Health 2004; 94 866–9.
| Overcoming language barriers in health care: costs and benefits of interpreter services.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res 2007; 42 727–54.
| Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev 2005; 62 255–99.
| The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Crossman KL, Wiener E, Roosevelt G, Bajaj L, Hampers LC. Interpreters: telephonic, in-person interpretation and bilingual providers. Pediatrics 2010; 125 e631–8.
| Interpreters: telephonic, in-person interpretation and bilingual providers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Gany F, Leng J, Shapiro E, Abramson D, Motola I, Shield DC, Changrani J. Patient satisfaction with different interpreting methods: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22 312–18.
| Patient satisfaction with different interpreting methods: a randomized controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Garcia EA, Roy LC, Okada PJ, Perkins SD, Wiebe RA. A comparison of the influence of hospital-trained, ad hoc, and telephone interpreters on perceived satisfaction of limited English-proficient parents presenting to a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care 2004; 20 373–8.
| A comparison of the influence of hospital-trained, ad hoc, and telephone interpreters on perceived satisfaction of limited English-proficient parents presenting to a pediatric emergency department.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Locatis C, Williamson D, Gould-Kabler C, Zone-Smith L, Detzler I, Roberson J, Maisiak R, Ackerman M. Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25 345–50.
| Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Wu AC, Leventhal JM, Ortiz J, Gonzalez EE, Forsyth B. The interpreter as cultural educator of residents: improving communication for Latino parents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006; 160 1145–50.
| The interpreter as cultural educator of residents: improving communication for Latino parents.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Schulz TR, Leder K, Akinci I, Biggs BA. Improvements in patient care: videoconferencing to improve access to interpreters during clinical consultations for refugee and immigrant patients. Aust Health Rev 2015; 39 395–9.
| Improvements in patient care: videoconferencing to improve access to interpreters during clinical consultations for refugee and immigrant patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Stevens LA, Mitchell PM, Vasquez J, Lopez GM, Gutierrez A, McGrath ME. Spanish-speaking patient satisfaction with interpreter services in the emergency department: comparison of in-person versus live-feed video interpretation. Ann Emerg Med 2011; 58 S308
| Spanish-speaking patient satisfaction with interpreter services in the emergency department: comparison of in-person versus live-feed video interpretation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Jacobs EA, Sadowski LS, Rathouz PJ. The impact of an enhanced interpreter service intervention on hospital costs and patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22 306–11.
| The impact of an enhanced interpreter service intervention on hospital costs and patient satisfaction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Haskard Zolnierek KB, Dimatteo MR. Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care 2009; 47 826–34.
| Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Sequist TD, Schneider EC, Anastario M, Odigie EG, Marshall R, Rogers WH, Gelb Safran D. Quality monitoring of physicians: linking patients’ experiences of care to clinical quality and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23 1784–90.
| Quality monitoring of physicians: linking patients’ experiences of care to clinical quality and outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Cabana MD, Jee SH. Does continuity of care improve patient outcomes? J Fam Pract 2004; 53 974–80.
[17] Adler R, Vasiliadis A, Bickell N. The relationship between continuity and patient satisfaction: a systematic review. J Fam Pract 2010; 27 171–8.
| The relationship between continuity and patient satisfaction: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Flores G, Laws MB, Mayo SJ, Zuckerman B, Abreu M, Medina L, Hardt EJ. Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics 2003; 111 6–14.
| Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Atkin N. Getting the message across: professional interpreters in general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2008; 37 174–6.
[20] Katz HP, Kaltsounis D, Halloran L, Mondor M. Patient safety and telephone medicine. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23 517–22.
| Patient safety and telephone medicine.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
