Thomas R Schulz1, Karin Leder1, Ismail Akinci2, Beverley-Ann Biggs1. 1. Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Level 5 Doherty Institute, 792 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia. Email. 2. All Graduates Interpreter Services, Suite 8.02, 343 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000, Australia. Email.
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.
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.