Interpreters: telephonic, in-person interpretation and bilingual providers

Area of Science:

• Medical Communication
• Health Services Research
• Linguistics in Healthcare

Background:

• Language barriers significantly impede effective healthcare interactions.
• Limited large-scale randomized studies exist on interpreter modality efficacy.
• Ensuring clear communication is crucial for patients with limited English proficiency.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of telephonic interpretation and in-person medical interpretation against verified bilingual physicians.
• To assess patient concordance on diagnosis and satisfaction across different interpretation methods.
• To establish noninferiority of interpreter services compared to bilingual providers.

Main Methods:

• Prospective, randomized trial in a pediatric emergency department.
• Participants: Families preferring Spanish communication.
• Intervention groups: Telephonic interpretation, in-person interpreter, or bilingual physician.

Main Results:

• 1201 families enrolled; diagnostic concordance was similar across all groups (approx. 95%).
• In-person interpretation scored lower for quality and satisfaction than telephonic and bilingual groups.
• Telephonic and in-person interpretation demonstrated noninferiority to bilingual physicians in quality and satisfaction.

Conclusions:

• Telephonic and in-person interpretation achieve comparable diagnostic understanding to bilingual providers.
• Both interpretation methods are generally non-inferior in qualitative measures.
• A slight trend favored telephonic interpretation over in-person services for patient experience.