Literature DB >> 31320333

Observational study to understand interpreter service use in emergency medicine: why the key may lie outside of the initial provider assessment.

Natalie C Benda1,2, Rollin J Fairbanks3,4, D Jeffrey Higginbotham5, Li Lin1, Ann M Bisantz1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the use of interpreter services and other strategies used to communicate with limited English proficient (LEP) patients throughout their emergency department visit.
METHODS: We performed a process tracing study observing LEP patients throughout their stay in the emergency department. A single observer completed 47 hours of observation of 103 communication episodes between staff and nine patients with LEP documenting the strategy used to communicate (eg, professional interpreter, family member, own language skills) and duration of conversations for each communicative encounter with hospital staff members. Data collection occurred in a single emergency department in the eastern USA between July 2017 and February 2018.
RESULTS: The most common strategy (per communicative encounter) was for the emergency department staff to communicate with the patient in English (observed in 29.1% of encounters). Total time spent in communicating was highest using telephone-based interpreters (32.9% of total time spent communicating) and in-person interpreters (29.2% of total time spent communicating). Communicative mechanism also varied by care task/phase of care with the most use of interpreter services or Spanish proficient staff (as primary communicator) occurring during triage (100%) and the initial provider assessment (100%) and the lowest interpreter service use during ongoing evaluation and treatment tasks (24.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Emergency department staff use various mechanisms to communicate with LEP patients throughout their length of stay. Utilisation of interpreter services was poorest during evaluation and treatment tasks, indicating that this area should be a focus for improving communication with LEP patients. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communications; global health; patient support; safety

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31320333     DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2019-208420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Emerg Med J        ISSN: 1472-0205            Impact factor:   2.740


  5 in total

1.  Emergency care provided to refugee children in Europe: RefuNET: a cross-sectional survey study.

Authors:  Ruud Gerard Nijman; Johanna Krone; Santiago Mintegi; Christoph Bidlingmaier; Ian K Maconochie; Mark D Lyttle; Ulrich von Both
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.740

2.  Breaking through barriers: the need for effective research to promote language-concordant communication as a facilitator of equitable emergency care.

Authors:  Colleen K Gutman; K Casey Lion; Carla L Fisher; Paul L Aronson; Mary Patterson; Rosemarie Fernandez
Journal:  J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open       Date:  2022-01-14

Review 3.  A Scoping Review of Current Social Emergency Medicine Research.

Authors:  Ruhee Shah; Alessandra Della Porta; Sherman Leung; Margaret Samuels-Kalow; Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Lynne D Richardson; Michelle P Lin
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2021-10-27

4.  Enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma manifesting as non-specific abdominal pain: A case report highlighting the dangers of relying on Google Translate for clinical history taking.

Authors:  Deirbhile Leyden; Niamh Melby
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2021-12-07

5.  Factors associated with emergency department length of stay of foreign patients visiting a regional core hospital in Japan.

Authors:  Yoshihiro Aoki; Hiroshi Kumazaki; Ion Terakawa; Takeshi Hatachi; Kosuke Shiroto; Naoto Miyauchi; Kazuki Suganuma
Journal:  Acute Med Surg       Date:  2022-05-22
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.