![]() ![]() Overall, 135 (45%) were able to discuss symptoms and 143 (48%) to understand physician recommendations in English. Results One hundred ninety-eight (66%) participants reported speaking English less than “very well” and 166 (55%) less than “well” 157 (52%) preferred receiving their medical care in Spanish. Participants Three hundred and two patients > 18 who spoke Spanish and/or English recruited from a cardiology clinic and an inpatient general medical-surgical ward in 2004–2005. Design We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the Census-LEP alone or in combination with a question on preferred language for medical care for predicting patient-reported ability to discuss symptoms and understand physician recommendations in English. Census English proficiency question (Census-LEP) in predicting patients’ ability to communicate effectively in English. Objective To evaluate the accuracy of the U.S. Implementing RSMI should be considered an important component of a multipronged approach to addressing language barriers in health care.īackground Standardized means to identify patients likely to benefit from language assistance are needed. Conclusions While not a substitute for language-concordant providers, RSMI can improve patient satisfaction and privacy among LEP patients. Patients randomized to either arm of interpretation reported less comprehension and satisfaction than patients in language-concordant encounters. Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely to think the interpreting method protected their privacy (RSMI 51%, U&C 38%, p < 0.05). In a linear regression analysis, exposure to RSMI was significantly associated with an increase in overall satisfaction with physician communication/care (β 0.10, 95% CI 0.02–0.18, scale 0–1.0). Patients randomized to RSMI were more likely than those with U&C to think doctors treated them with respect (RSMI 71%, U&C 64%, p < 0.05), but they did not differ in other measures of physician communication/care. Results 541 patients were language-concordant with their providers and not randomized 371 were randomized to RSMI, 167 of whom were exposed to RSMI and 364 were randomized to U&C, 198 of whom were exposed to U&C. Demographic and patient satisfaction questionnaires were administered to all participants. Patients with language-concordant providers received usual care. Language-discordant patients were randomized to RSMI or usual and customary (U&C) interpreting. Methods 1,276 English-, Spanish-, Mandarin-, and Cantonese-speaking patients attending the primary care clinic and emergency department of a large New York City municipal hospital were screened for enrollment in a randomized controlled trial. This study evaluates the impact of interpreting method on patient satisfaction. Innovative medical interpreting strategies, including remote simultaneous medical interpreting (RSMI), have arisen to address the language barrier. has led to increasing numbers of limited-English-proficient (LEP) patients. Conclusions Whereas limited by the small number of interpreters involved, our study found that RSMI resulted in fewer medical errors and was faster than non-RSMI methods of interpreting.īackground Growth of the foreign-born population in the U.S. There were 12 times more medical errors of moderate or greater clinical significance among utterances in non-RSMI encounters compared to RSMI encounters (p = 0.0002). Results Remote simultaneous medical interpreting (RSMI) encounters averaged 12.72 vs 18.24 minutes for the next fastest mode (proximate ad hoc) (p = 0.002). Measurements Audiotaped transcripts of the encounters were coded, using a prespecified algorithm to determine medical error and linguistic error, by coders blinded to the interpreting method. The first 3 methods utilized professional, trained interpreters, whereas the ad hoc method utilized untrained staff. ![]() These scripts were run across four interpreting methods, including remote simultaneous, remote consecutive, proximate consecutive, and proximate ad hoc interpreting. Design Four scripted clinical encounters were used to enable the comparison of equivalent clinical content. ![]() This investigation addresses this important gap. Objective Little is known about the impact of various interpreting methods on interpreting speed and errors. Interpreting for limited English proficient patients is intended to enhance communication and delivery of quality medical care. Background Twenty-two million Americans have limited English proficiency. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |