Use of professional interpreters for children and families with limited English proficiency: The intersection with quality and safety. (7th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Brophy‐Williams, Sam; Boylen, Susan; Gill, Fenella J; Wilson, Sally; Cherian, Sarah
• Is Part Of: Journal of paediatrics and child health. Volume 56:Number 8(2020)
• Page Start: 1201
• Page End: 1209
• Publication Date: 2020-04-07
• Subjects: English proficiency -- governance -- International Child Health -- interpreters -- refugee health; Children -- Health and hygiene -- Periodicals; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; 618.92
• DOI: 10.1111/jpc.14880
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1034-4810

Abstract

Abstract : Aim: Linguistic diversity is increasing nationally; patients with limited English proficiency require provision of professional interpreters. We reviewed hospital‐wide use of interpreters for low English proficiency in a tertiary hospital across emergency (ED), outpatient and inpatient presentations. Methods: Two cohorts with low English proficiency presenting to Princess Margaret Hospital were audited. Records of new Refugee Health Service patients (presenting between January and July 2015) and non‐Refugee Health Service low English proficiency patients (obtained through Language Services bookings) were reviewed to assess demographic profiles and use of interpreters for any occasion of service over the following 12 months (for each patient). Results: Data from 188 patients were reviewed (Refugee Health Service: 119 patients; non‐Refugee Health Service: 69 patients; total 1027 occasions of service); all were under 18 years of age. High socio‐economic disadvantage and limited education was noted. Almost all (98.5%) had low English proficiency; 3 Refugee Health Service parents spoke English; 68% of non‐Refugee Health Service patients were in families previously transitioned from that service. Interpreter use was poor across all areas. Thirty‐four patients had 46 inpatient admissions with documented interpreter use for 59% (20/34) of these. All patients underwent at least one procedure, with no instances of interpreter documentation for procedure consent. Documented interpreter use was minimal in outpatient occasions of service (32/118, 27% Refugee Health Service; 18/222, 8% non‐Refugee Health Service). Only one Refugee Health Service patient had evidence of ED interpreter use, out of 78 ED occasions of service (34 patients). Conclusions: Despite documented low English proficiency, suboptimal and inadequate use of professional interpreters persists. Low English proficiency patients are vulnerable, with socio‐economic disadvantage, likely to impact on health outcomes and compliance. Organisational risk also is highlighted, including impact on clinical handover, informed consent and non‐compliance with state language services policy. Further staff education and quality improvement work is essential.