Ben Gray1, Jo Hilder, Maria Stubbe. 1. Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago Wellington, PO Box 7343, Wellington South, New Zealand. ben.gray@otago.ac.nz
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: New Zealand is becoming more ethnically diverse, with more limited English proficiency (LEP) people. Consequently there are more primary care consultations where patients have insufficient English to communicate adequately. Because effective communication is essential for good care, interpreters are needed in such cases. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM: The literature on the use of interpreters in health care includes the benefits of using both trained interpreters (accuracy, confidentiality, ethical behaviour) and untrained interpreters (continuity, trust, patient resistance to interpreter). There is little research on the actual pattern of use of interpreters. RESULTS: Our research documented a low use of trained interpreters, despite knowledge of the risks of untrained interpreters and a significant use of untrained interpreters where clinicians felt that the communication was acceptable. A review of currently available guidelines and toolkits showed that most insist on always using a trained interpreter, without addressing the cost or availability. None were suitable for direct use in New Zealand general practice. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENT: We produced a toolkit consisting of flowcharts, scenarios and information boxes to guide New Zealand practices through the structure, processes and outcomes of their practice to improve communication with LEP patients. This paper describes this toolkit and the links to the evidence, and argues that every consultation with LEP patients requires clinical judgement as to the type of interpreting needed. LESSONS: Primary care practitioners need understanding about when trained interpreters are required.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: New Zealand is becoming more ethnically diverse, with more limited English proficiency (LEP) people. Consequently there are more primary care consultations where patients have insufficient English to communicate adequately. Because effective communication is essential for good care, interpreters are needed in such cases. ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM: The literature on the use of interpreters in health care includes the benefits of using both trained interpreters (accuracy, confidentiality, ethical behaviour) and untrained interpreters (continuity, trust, patient resistance to interpreter). There is little research on the actual pattern of use of interpreters. RESULTS: Our research documented a low use of trained interpreters, despite knowledge of the risks of untrained interpreters and a significant use of untrained interpreters where clinicians felt that the communication was acceptable. A review of currently available guidelines and toolkits showed that most insist on always using a trained interpreter, without addressing the cost or availability. None were suitable for direct use in New Zealand general practice. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENT: We produced a toolkit consisting of flowcharts, scenarios and information boxes to guide New Zealand practices through the structure, processes and outcomes of their practice to improve communication with LEP patients. This paper describes this toolkit and the links to the evidence, and argues that every consultation with LEP patients requires clinical judgement as to the type of interpreting needed. LESSONS: Primary care practitioners need understanding about when trained interpreters are required.
Authors: Annette Sofie Davidsen; Johanna Falby Lindell; Cæcilie Hansen; Camilla Michaëlis; Melissa Catherine Lutterodt; Allan Krasnik; Marie Louise Norredam; Susanne Reventlow Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-05-02