BACKGROUND: Care of non-English speaking patients poses a unique challenge to the anesthesiologist in the perioperative setting. Communication limitations can be frustrating to both the patient and provider, and at times can compromise the quality of care, resulting in health care disparities. An often overlooked, but critical component is the interaction between the anesthesia provider and the interpreter. The goal of our study was to identify misconceptions regarding anesthesia and determine common knowledge gaps amongst medical interpreters. METHODS: A survey inquiring about past perioperative experiences, level of training, and barriers to effective communication was sent to the Department of Interpreter Services (IS). Concurrently, a survey was sent to the Department of Anesthesia, about their experiences with interpreters in the perioperative setting. RESULTS: Our survey had 29 respondents from IS and 42 respondents from Anesthesia. 85% of interpreters had >5 years experience, but 96% denied having anesthesia specific training. Additionally, 42.5% of our interpreters felt that less than half of their patients were sufficiently literate to read and consent in their native language. Anesthesia providers were primarily concerned about the fidelity of the interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Misunderstanding one another's field appears to play a significant role in the communication issues surrounding interpretation for anesthesia. Educating both departments may prove beneficial to resolving misconceptions, improving perioperative interactions and ultimately improving patient care. Based on the gathered information, a continuing education lecture was created by the Anesthesia Department in order to improve our interpreters' understanding of anesthesia, associated procedures and vocabulary.
BACKGROUND: Care of non-English speaking patients poses a unique challenge to the anesthesiologist in the perioperative setting. Communication limitations can be frustrating to both the patient and provider, and at times can compromise the quality of care, resulting in health care disparities. An often overlooked, but critical component is the interaction between the anesthesia provider and the interpreter. The goal of our study was to identify misconceptions regarding anesthesia and determine common knowledge gaps amongst medical interpreters. METHODS: A survey inquiring about past perioperative experiences, level of training, and barriers to effective communication was sent to the Department of Interpreter Services (IS). Concurrently, a survey was sent to the Department of Anesthesia, about their experiences with interpreters in the perioperative setting. RESULTS: Our survey had 29 respondents from IS and 42 respondents from Anesthesia. 85% of interpreters had >5 years experience, but 96% denied having anesthesia specific training. Additionally, 42.5% of our interpreters felt that less than half of their patients were sufficiently literate to read and consent in their native language. Anesthesia providers were primarily concerned about the fidelity of the interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Misunderstanding one another's field appears to play a significant role in the communication issues surrounding interpretation for anesthesia. Educating both departments may prove beneficial to resolving misconceptions, improving perioperative interactions and ultimately improving patient care. Based on the gathered information, a continuing education lecture was created by the Anesthesia Department in order to improve our interpreters' understanding of anesthesia, associated procedures and vocabulary.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anesthesia; Education; Healthcare Disparities; Informed Consent; Interpretation; Preoperative Period
Authors: Paul Kinnersley; Katie Phillips; Katherine Savage; Mark J Kelly; Elinor Farrell; Ben Morgan; Robert Whistance; Vicky Lewis; Mala K Mann; Bethan L Stephens; Jane Blazeby; Glyn Elwyn; Adrian G K Edwards Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-07-06