Effect of spanish interpretation method on patient satisfaction in an urban walk-in clinic

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of Spanish interpretation method on satisfaction with care. DESIGN: Self-administered post-visit questionnaire.SETTING: Urban, university-affiliated walk-in clinic.PARTICIPANTS: Adult, English-and Spanish-speaking patients presenting for acute care of non-emergent medical problems. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Satisfaction with overall clinic visit and with 7 provider characteristics was evaluated by multiple logistic regression, controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, education, insurance status, having a routine source of medical care, and baseline health.`L anguage-concordant'' patients, defined as Spanishspeaking patients seen by Spanish-speaking providers and English-speaking patients, and patients using AT&T telephone interpreters reported identical overall visit satisfaction (77%; P = .57), while those using family or ad hoc interpreters were significantly less satisfied (54% and 49%; P < .01 and P = .007, respectively). AT&T interpreter use and language concordance also yielded similar satisfaction rates for provider characteristics (P > .2 for all values). Compared to language-concordant patients, patients who had family members interpret were less satisfied with provider listening (62% vs 85%; P = .003), discussion of sensitive issues (60% vs 76%; P = .02), and manner (62% vs 89%; P = .005). Patients who used ad hoc interpreters were less satisfied with provider skills (60% vs 83%; P = .02), manner (71% vs 89%; P = .02), listening (54% vs 85%; P = .002), explanations (57% vs 84%; P = .02), answers (57% vs 84%; P = .05), and support (63% vs 84%; P = .02).CONCLUSIONS: Spanish-speaking patients using AT&T telephone interpretation are as satisfied with care as those seeing language-concordant providers, while patients using family or ad hoc interpreters are less satisfied. Clinics serving a large population of Spanish-speaking patients can enhance patient satisfaction by avoiding the use of untrained interpreters, such as family or ad hoc interpreters.

Alterations in Medical Interpretation During Routine Primary Care

“…Interpreters are clearly vital for health communication 2,5,8,10,13,19 . Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires health care providers who receive federal financial assistance, including Medicaid and Medicare, to provide language assistance at no cost to patients.…”

Descriptive translation studies of audiovisual translation

“…Fagan et al 2003, Jones et al 2003, Kuo & Fagan 1999, Lee et al 2002 and video connections (cf. Jones et al 2003, Paras et al 2002) -all in medical encounters -are difficult to compare because of a great variance in the conditions under which they were conducted.…”

“…On the other hand, the reactions of primary participants from different cultural and social backgrounds, different age groups, of people with medical conditions or under stress (in a medical or court room or police context) to the new forms of interpreting are largely unknown (but cf. Lee et al 2002) and could potentially have important implications on the usability of these forms of interpreting. At the same time, the cultural and social backgrounds of speakers and their related linguistic behavior (e.g.…”

Interpreter Services in Emergency Medicine

“…Its use, however, is proven to be more effective than ad hoc interpretation and professional translation has been demonstrated to be superior to all other means tested. (14) Even if the interpretation by non-professional interpreters is linguistically perfect, misleading information may still be transmitted due to the difficulty in obtaining a strict translation of medical problems, the tendency for over-simplification of complex cultural phenomena, and special problems dealing with translation by family members. In one study, patients who had family members interpret for them were less satisfied with the provider listening (62% vs. 85%; p = .003), discussion of sensitive issues (60% vs. 76%; p = .02), and manner (62% vs. 89%; p = 6 .005) compared to patients whose language was concordant with the provider.…”

“…In one study, patients who had family members interpret for them were less satisfied with the provider listening (62% vs. 85%; p = .003), discussion of sensitive issues (60% vs. 76%; p = .02), and manner (62% vs. 89%; p = 6 .005) compared to patients whose language was concordant with the provider. (14) Medical problems are often complicated to explain and frequently involve divulging very personal information. This often leads to complications such as patients leaving out important facts due to embarrassment and not wishing to share personal information when family members are translating.…”