Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communication barriers in counselling foreign-language patients in public pharmacies: threats to patient safety?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Foreign-language (FL) patients are at increased risk for adverse drug events. Evidence regarding communication barriers and the safety of pharmaceutical care of FL patients in European countries is scarce despite large migrant populations. Objective To investigate Swiss public pharmacists’ experiences and current practices in counselling FL patients with a focus on patient safety. Method In a cross-sectional study heads of public pharmacies in Switzerland were surveyed using an electronic questionnaire. Main outcome measure The survey assessed the frequency of communication barriers encountered in medication counselling of FL patients, perceptions of risks for adverse drug events, satisfaction with the quality of counselling provided to FL patients, current strategies to reduce risks, and preferences towards tools to improve safety for FL patients. Results 498 pharmacists completed the survey (43 % response rate). More than every second pharmacist reported at least weekly encounters at which they cannot provide good medication counselling to FL patients in the regional Swiss language. Ad-hoc interpreting by minors is also common at a considerable number of pharmacies (26.5 % reported at least one weekly occurrence). Approximately 10 % of pharmacies reported that they fail at least weekly to explain the essentials of drug therapy (e.g. dosing of children’s medications) to FL patients. 79.8 % perceived the risk of FL patients for adverse drug events to be somewhat or much higher compared to other patients. 22.5 % of pharmacists reported being concerned at least monthly about medication safety when FL patients leave their pharmacy. However, the majority of pharmacists were satisfied with the quality of care provided to FL patients in their pharmacy [78.6 % (very) satisfied]. The main strategy used to improve counselling for FL patients was the employment of multilingual staff. Participants would use software for printing foreign-language labels (41.2 %) and multilingual package inserts (42.0 %) if these were available. Conclusion Communication barriers with FL patients are frequent in Swiss pharmacies and pharmacists perceive FL patients to be at increased risk for adverse drug events. Development and dissemination of communication tools are needed to support pharmacists in counselling of a diverse migrant population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bartlett G, Blais R, Tamblyn R, Clermont RJ, MacGibbon B. Impact of patient communication problems on the risk of preventable adverse events in acute care settings. CMAJ. 2008;178:1555–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnstone MJ, Kanitsaki O. Engaging patients as safety partners: some considerations for ensuring a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach. Health Policy. 2008;90:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnstone MJ, Kanitsaki O. Culture, language, and patient safety: making the link. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18:383–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lokker N, Sanders L, Perrin EM, Kumar D, Finkle J, Franco V, et al. Parental misinterpretations of over-the-counter pediatric cough and cold medication labels. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1464–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rommel A, Weilandt C, Eckert J. Gesundheitsmonitoring der schweizerischen Migrationsbevölkerung. Endbericht an das Bundesamt für Gesundheit, Sektion Chancengleichheit und Gesundheit, Fachbereich Migration, und Gesundheit und das Bundesamt für Migration. Bonn: WIAD. Wissenschaftliches Institut der Ärzte Deutschlands; 2006. Available at: http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/gesundheitspolitik/07685/12533/12535/index.html. Accessed 21 May 2012.

  6. Cohen AL, Rivara F, Marcuse EK, McPhillips H, Davis R. Are language barriers associated with serious medical events in hospitalized pediatric patients? Pediatrics. 2005;116:575–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bradshaw M, Tomany-Korman S, Flores G. Language barriers to prescriptions for patients with limited english proficiency: a survey of pharmacies. Pediatrics. 2007;120:e225–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weiss L, Gany F, Rosenfeld P, Carrasquillo O, Sharif I, Behar E, et al. Access to multilingual medication instructions at New York City pharmacies. J Urban Health. 2007;84:742–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bailey SC, Pandit AU, Curtis L, Wolf MS. Availability of Spanish prescription labels: a multi-state pharmacy survey. Med Care. 2009;47:707–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Flores G, Ngui E. Racial/ethnic disparities and patient safety. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2006;53:1197–215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. FIP/WHO. Good pharmacy practice. Joint FIP/WHO guidelines on GPP: Standards for quality of pharmacy services. The Hague: International Pharmaceutical Federation; 2011. Available at: http://www.fip.org/files/fip/WHO/GPP%20guidelines%20FIP%20publication_final.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2012.

  12. OECD/WHO. OECD reviews of health systems: Switzerland 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2011. ISBN:978-92-64-12090-7.

  13. Guggisberg J, Gardiol L, Graf I, Oesch T, Künzi K, Volken T, et al. Zweites Gesundheitsmonitoring der Migrationsbevölkerung (GMM II) in der Schweiz—Schlussbericht. Bern: Bundesamt für Gesundheit; 2011. Available at: http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/gesundheitspolitik/07685/12533/12535/index.html. Accessed 21 May 2012.

  14. Bischoff A, Tonnerre C, Eytan A, Bernstein M, Loutan L. Addressing language barriers to health care, a survey of medical services in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed. 1999;44:248–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kocher G, Oggier W. Gesundheitswesen Schweiz 2010-2012. Eine aktuelle Übersicht. 4 ed. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2010. ISBN:978-3456848037.

  16. Pfluger T, Biedermann A, Salis Gross C. Transkulturelle Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung in der Schweiz. Grundlagen und Empfehlungen. Schlussbericht an den Schweizerischen Tabakpräventionsfonds. Bern: Public Health Services; 2009. Available at: www.zora.uzh.ch/28145/2/28145.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2012.

  17. Stuker R, Salis Gross C, Schnoz D, Kayser A. Umfrage bei ausgewählten ExponentInnen der Migrationsbevölkerung und Fachpersonen mit Migrationshintergrund zu den Bereichen Tabak und Alkohol. Bern: Schweizerisches Rotes Kreuz; 2008. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-12208. Accessed 21 May 2012.

  18. Moret J, Dahinden J. Vers une meilleure communication. Coopération avec les réseaux de migrants. Bern: Commission fédérale pour les questions de migration CFM; 2009. Available at: http://edudoc.ch/record/35409?ln=de. Accessed 21 May 2012.

  19. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2011. ISBN:978-1-59718-098-6.

  20. Hudelson P, Vilpert S. Overcoming language barriers with foreign-language speaking patients: a survey to investigate intra-hospital variation in attitudes and practices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Elderkin-Thompson V, Cohen Silver R, Waitzkin H. When nurses double as interpreters: a study of Spanish-speaking patients in a US primary care setting. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:1343–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schenker Y, Perez-Stable EJ, Nickleach D, Karliner L. Patterns of interpreter use for hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:712–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Giordano S. Overview of the advantages and disadvantages of professional and child interpreters for limited English proficiency patients in general health care situations. J Radiol Nurs. 2007;26:126–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenberg E, Seller R, Leanza Y. Through interpreters’ eyes: comparing roles of professional and family interpreters. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70:87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited english proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:727–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bagchi AD, Dale S, Verbitsky-Savitz N, Andrecheck S, Zavotsky K, Eisenstein R. Examining effectiveness of medical interpreters in emergency departments for Spanish-speaking patients with limited English proficiency: results of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:248–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Flores G, Abreu M, Barone CP, Bachur R, Lin H. Errors of medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences: a comparison of professional versus ad hoc versus no interpreters. Ann Emerg Med. 2012; ePub ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.025.

  28. Burbano O’Leary SC, Federico S, Hampers LC. The truth about language barriers: one residency program’s experience. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e569–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Phillips CB, Travaglia J. Low levels of uptake of free interpreters by Australian doctors in private practice: secondary analysis of national data. Aust Health Rev. 2011;35:475–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tuot DS, Lopez M, Miller C, Karliner LS. Impact of an easy-access telephonic interpreter program in the acute care setting: an evaluation of a quality improvement intervention. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38:81–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Emmerton LM, Mampallil L, Kairuz T, McKauge LM, Bush RA. Exploring health literacy competencies in community pharmacy. Health Expect. 2012;15:12–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all pharmacists who participated in the study and completed the survey. Advice by several experts on prior versions of the survey is highly appreciated. Support by pharmaSuisse is acknowledged.

Funding

This work was supported by the Swiss Pharmacists Association (pharmaSuisse). The funding source had no influence on study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The views expressed and any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Patient Safety Foundation, Asylstr. 77, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland

    David L. B. Schwappach, Carla Meyer Massetti & Katrin Gehring

  2. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    David L. B. Schwappach

Authors
  1. David L. B. Schwappach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carla Meyer Massetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrin Gehring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. B. Schwappach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwappach, D.L.B., Meyer Massetti, C. & Gehring, K. Communication barriers in counselling foreign-language patients in public pharmacies: threats to patient safety?. Int J Clin Pharm 34, 765–772 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-012-9674-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-012-9674-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation