Improvements in patient care: videoconferencing to improve access to interpreters during clinical consultations for refugee and immigrant patients
Thomas R. Schulz A D , Karin Leder A B , Ismail Akinci C and Beverley-Ann Biggs A D EA Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Level 5 Doherty Institute, 792 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia. Email: Thomas.Schulz@mh.org.au
B Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004, Australia. Email: karin.leder@med.monash.edu.au
C All Graduates Interpreter Services, Suite 8.02, 343 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia. Email: admin@allgraduates.com.au
D University of Melbourne, Department of Medicine at the Doherty Institute, Level 5 792 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: babiggs@unimelb.edu.au
Australian Health Review 39(4) 395-399 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14124
Submitted: 31 July 2014 Accepted: 15 January 2015 Published: 23 March 2015
Abstract
Objective To demonstrate the suitability of accessing interpreters via videoconference for medical consultations and to assess doctor and patient perceptions of this compared with either on-site or telephone interpreting.
Methods We assessed the suitability and acceptability of accessing interpreters via videoconference during out-patient clinical consultations in two situations: (i) when the doctor and patient were in a consulting room at a central hospital and the interpreter sat remotely; and (ii) when the doctor, patient and interpreter were each at separate sites (during a telehealth consultation). The main outcome measures were patient and doctor satisfaction, number of problems recorded and acceptability compared with other methods for accessing an interpreter.
Results Ninety-eight per cent of patients were satisfied overall with the use of an interpreter by video. When comparing videoconference interpreting with telephone interpreting, 82% of patients thought having an interpreter via video was better or much better, 15% thought it was the same and 3% considered it worse. Compared with on-site interpreting, 16% found videoconferencing better or much better, 58% considered it the same and 24% considered it worse or much worse.
Conclusions The present study has demonstrated that accessing an interpreter via videoconference is well accepted and preferred to telephone interpreting by both doctors and patients.
What is known about the topic? Many immigrants and refugees settle in rural Australia. Access to professional on-site interpreters is difficult, particularly in rural Australia.
What does this study add? Interpreters can be successfully accessed by videoconference. Patients and doctors prefer an interpreter accessed by videoconference rather than a telephone interpreter.
What are the implications for practitioners? Doctors can utilise videoconferencing to access interpreters if this is available, confident that this is well accepted by patients and preferred to telephone interpreting.
References
[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Reflecting a nation: stories from the 2011 census, 2012–2013. 2012. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013 [verified 4 November 2013].[2] Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Visas, immigration and refugees. 2013. Available at: http://www.immi.gov.au [verified 4 November 2013].
[3] Department of Immigration and Citizenship. 2012–13 migration program report. 2013. Available at: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/pdf/report-on-migration-program-2012-13.pdf [verified 4 November 2013].
[4] Department of Human Services. DHS refugee health and well being action plan 2008–2010. Melbourne: Department of Human Services; 2007.
[5] 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 | 17362215PubMed |
[6] 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 | 15894705PubMed |
[7] Flores G. Language barriers to health care in the United States. N Engl J Med 2006; 355 229–31.
| Language barriers to health care in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD28XntVWksbk%3D&md5=cc2057054f401064d514be5ae72af246CAS | 16855260PubMed |
[8] National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Communicating with patients: advice for medical practitioners. Canberra: Australian Government; 2004.
[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 | 20107916PubMed |
[10] Health Care Interpreter Network. 2012. Available at: www.hcin.org [verified 4 November 2013].
[11] Napoles AM, Santoyo-Olsson J, Karliner LS, O’Brien H, Gregorich SE, Perez-Stable EJ. Clinician ratings of interpreter mediated visits in underserved primary care settings with ad hoc, in-person professional, and video conferencing modes. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2010; 21 301–17.
| Clinician ratings of interpreter mediated visits in underserved primary care settings with ad hoc, in-person professional, and video conferencing modes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20173271PubMed |
[12] Wofford JL, Campos CL, Johnson DA, Brown MT. Providing a Spanish interpreter using low-cost videoconferencing in a community health centre: a pilot study using tablet computers. Inform Prim Care 2013; 20 141–6.
| Providing a Spanish interpreter using low-cost videoconferencing in a community health centre: a pilot study using tablet computers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Azarmina P, Wallace P. Remote interpretation in medical encounters: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 2005; 11 140–5.
| Remote interpretation in medical encounters: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15901441PubMed |
[14] Price EL, Perez-Stable EJ, Nickleach D, Lopez M, Karliner LS. Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 87 226–32.
| Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21930360PubMed |
[15] Atkin N. Getting the message across-professional interpreters in general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2008; 37 174–6.
| 18345370PubMed |
[16] Jacobs EA, Leos GS, Rathouz PJ, Fu P. Shared networks of interpreter services, at relatively low cost, can help providers serve patients with limited english skills. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30 1930–8.
| Shared networks of interpreter services, at relatively low cost, can help providers serve patients with limited english skills.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21976337PubMed |
[17] Karliner LS, Mutha S. Achieving quality in health care through language access services: lessons from a California public hospital. Am J Med Qual 2010; 25 51–9.
| Achieving quality in health care through language access services: lessons from a California public hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19955512PubMed |
