Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 175–183 | Cite as

The language divide

The importance of training in the use of interpreters for outpatient practice
  • Leah S. Karliner
  • Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable
  • Ginny Gildengorin
Original Articles

Abstract

PURPOSE: Provision of interpreter services for non-English-speaking patients is a federal requirement. We surveyed clinicians to describe their experience using interpreters.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study we surveyed clinicians in three academic outpatient settings in San Francisco (N=194) regarding their most recent patient encounter which involved an interpreter. Questions about the visit included type of interpreter, satisfaction with content of clinical encounter, potential problems, and frequency of need. Previous training in interpreter use, languages spoken, and demographics were also asked. Questionnaires were self-administered in approximately 10 minutes.

RESULTS: Of 194 questionnaires mailed, 158 were completed (81% response rate) and 67% were from resident physicians. Most respondents (78%) were very satisfied or satisfied with the medical care they provided, 85% felt satisfied with their ability to diagnose a disease and treat a disease, but only 45% were satisfied with their ability to empower the patient with knowledge about their disease, treatment, or medication. Even though 71% felt they were able to make a personal connection with their patient, only 33% felt they had learned about another culture as a result of the encounter. Clinicians reported difficulties eliciting exact symptoms (70%), explaining treatments (44%), and eliciting treatment preferences (51%). Clinicians perceived that lack of knowledge of a patient’s culture hindered their ability to provide quality medical care and only 18% felt they were unable to establish trust or rapport. Previous training in interpreter use was associated with increased use of professional interpreters (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 7.5) and increased satisfaction with medical care provided (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 6.6).

CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported communication difficulties affecting their ability to understand symptoms and treat disease, as well as their ability to empower patients regarding their healthcare. Training in the use of interpreters may improve communication and clinical care, and thus health outcomes.

Keywords

interpreters language barriers patient-clinician communication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    US Bureau of the Census. Table 1, Language Use and English Ability, Persons 5 Years and Over, by State. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carasquillo O, Orav EJ, Burstin HR. Impact of language barriers on patient satisfaction in an emergency department. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:82–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirkman-Liff B, Mondragon D. Language of interview: relevance for research of southwest Hispanics. Am J Public Health. 1991;81:1399–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lasater LM, Davidson AJ, Steiner JF, Mehler PS. Glycemic control in English- vs Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:77–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manson A. Language concordance as a determinant of patient compliance and emergency room use in patients with asthma. Med Care. 1988;26:1119–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Derose KP, Baker DW. Limited English proficiency and Latinos’ use of physician services. Med Care Res Rev. 2000;57:76–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sarver J, Baker DW. Effect of language barriers on follow-up appointments after an emergency department visit. J Gen Internal Med. 2000;15:256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perez-Stable EJ, Napoles-Springer A, Miramonts JM. The effects of ethnicity and language on medical outcomes of patients with hypertension or diabetes. Med Care. 1997;35:1212–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parsons L, Day S. Improving obstetric outcomes in ethnic minorities: an evaluation of health advocacy in Hackney. J Public Health Med. 1992;14:183–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kline F, Acosta FX, Austin W, Johnson RG. The misunderstood Spanish-speaking patient. Am J Psychiatry. 1980;137:1530–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tocher T, Larson E. Quality of diabetes care for non-English-speaking patients: a comparative study. West J Med. 1998;168:504–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacobs EA, Lauderdale DS, Meltzer D, Shorey JM, Levinson W, Thisted RA. Impact of interpreter services on delivery of health care to limited-English-proficient patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:468–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health. National Standards of Cultural and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office; 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title vi Prohibition Against National Origin. Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons. Washington, DC: US Office of Civil Rights; 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothschild SK. Part I. Cross-cultural issues in primary care medicine. Dis Mon. 1998;44:293–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faust S, Drickey R. Working with interpreters. J Fam Pract. 1986;22:131–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poss JE, Rangel R. Working effectively with interpreters in the primary care setting. Nurse Pract. 1995;20:43–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmermann PG. Use of interpreters in the emergency department. J Emerg Nurs. 1996;22:225–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT (TM) User’s Guide, 1.3, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1999: 1028.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuo D, Fagan MJ. Satisfaction with methods of Spanish interpretation in an ambulatory care clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:547–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baker DW, Hayes R, Fortier JP. Interpreter use and satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care for Spanish-speaking patients. Med Care. 1998;36:1461–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Derose KP, Hayes RD, McCaffrey DF, Baker DW. Does physician gender affect satisfaction of men and women visiting the emergency department? J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:218–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carrillo JE, Green AR, Betancourt JR. Cross-cultural primary care: a patient-based approach. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:829–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eytan A, Bischoff A, Loutan L. Use interpreters Switzerland’s psychiatric services. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1999;187:190–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hornberger J, Itakura H, Wilson SR. Bridging language and cultural barriers between physicians and patients. Public Health Rep. 1997;112:410–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hornberger JD, Gibson CD, Jr., Wood W, et al. Eliminating language barriers for non-English-speaking patients. Med Care. 1996;34:845–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Acosta FX, Cristo MH. Development of a bilingual interpreter program: an alternative model for Spanish-speaking services. Prof Psychol. 1981;12:474–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Acosta FX, Cristo MH. Bilingual-bicultural interpreters as pyschotherapeutic bridges. A program note. J Comm Psych. 1982;10:54–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vasquez C, Javier RA. The problem with interpreters: communicating with Spanish-speaking patients. Hosp Comm Psych. 1991;42:163–5.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paras M, Leyva OA, Berthold T, Otake RN. Videoconferencing Medical Interpretation: The Results of Clinical Trials. San Francisco, CA: Health Access Foundation Report; 2002.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reilly BM, Schiff G, Conway T. Part II. Primary care for the medically underserved. Challenges and opportunities. Dis Mon. 1998;44:321–46.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Coates WC, Pitkin K. Use and effectiveness of interpreters in an emergency department. JAMA. 1996;275:783–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baker DW, Hayes R, Fortier JP. Interpreter use and satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care for Spanish-speaking patients. Med Care. 1998;36:1461–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kuo D, Fagan MJ. Satisfaction with methods of Spanish interpretation in an ambulatory care clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:547–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kagawa-Singer M, Blackhall LJ. Negotiating cross-cultural issues at the end of life ‘You Got to Go Where He Lives’. JAMA. 2001;286:2993–3001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tocher TM, Larson E. Do physicians spend more time with non-English-speaking patients? J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:303–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rivadeneyra R, Elderkin-Thompson V, Silver RC, Waitzkin H. Patient-centeredness in medical encounters requiring an interpreter. Am J Med. 2000;108:470–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Flores G, et al. Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics. 2003;111:6–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leah S. Karliner
    • 1
  • Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable
    • 1
  • Ginny Gildengorin
    • 1
  1. 1.Received from the Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Center for Aging in Diverse CommunitiesUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan Francisco

Personalised recommendations