Patient satisfaction of telephone or video interpreter services compared with in-person services: a systematic review

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.

Patient Perspectives on the Quality of Professional Interpretation: Results from LASI Study

“…While there were differences in patient characteristics in terms of who received each modality of interpretation, after adjusting for these differences, overall quality remained similar across modalities with a trend toward VMI being a little better than in-person and telephone *** Cronbach alpha for five item scale = 0.964 (1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Very Good, and 5=Excellent) being a little worse. This is consistent with the literature on patient satisfaction with professional interpretation across modality 12 , and with another study which assessed patient perspective of overall encounter quality for visits with different professional interpretation modalities. 7 Although the literature on quality of interpretation by modality is limited, our group's previous work showed that from the interpreter perspective, telephone interpretation was adequate for simple information exchange, but VMI offered better communication for more complex clinical visits, 4 and from the physician's perspective, VMI and in-person interpretation offered similar quality of interpretation, although in-person interpretation allowed for more nuance particularly when addressing cultural differences.…”

“…[8][9][10][11] A systematic review of patient satisfaction with interpreter by modality also found that patients are generally satisfied with interpreters regardless of modality, as long as those interpreters are professionally trained. 12 While this previous literature suggests the importance of measuring interpreter quality and demonstrates patient satisfaction with professional interpretation, there remains a gap in detailed understanding of how the quality of interpreter-specific communication may differ across interpretation modality from a patient perspective. For patients with LEP, it is important to understand whether quality of professional interpretation in-person is preserved in remote modalities.…”

A narrative review of the evidence regarding the use of telemedicine to deliver video‐interpreting during dementia assessments for older people

“…Video‐interpreting in a clinical context involves the use of TM with an interpreter located in a different location to the clinician and CALD patient to assist with medical consultations. Telephone and video‐interpreting were found to be just as effective as FTF interpreting, with similar levels of patient satisfaction (Joseph, Garruba, & Melder, ) in younger CALD individuals. Therefore, using alternative telecommunication modalities to deliver interpreter‐assisted health care may overcome the barriers of interpreter availability when diagnosing dementia in older people from CALD backgrounds.…”

Lost in Translation: The Role of Interpreters on Labor and Delivery

“…There are some circumstances in which remote methods are preferred, 7,8 but many patients, interpreters, and providers express preference for in-person encounters. 9 Although current evidence does not conclusively identify a superior mode of interpretation in all settings, 10 remote tools can be difficult to use and depend on adequate wi-fi, variable wait time fluctuating with language availability, and inconsistent interpreter skillset. A comprehensive pilot study comparing remote and in-person interpretation modalities at the Cambridge Health Alliance identified situations poorly suited for telephone interpretation, including commotion in the room, procedures, and trying to communicate with multiple people, 7 all common features of labor and delivery.…”