Satisfaction With Telephone Versus In-Person Interpretation Services in Limited English-Proficient Urogynecology Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Issue 6 (June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taylor, Danielle Lynn; Sierra, Tania; Maheshwari, Deepali; Hall, Cynthia; Leung, Katherine; Flynn, Michael
• Is Part Of: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. Volume 27:Issue 6(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-06
• Subjects: patient satisfaction -- interpretation services -- quality health care; Pelvis -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Pelvis -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Genital Diseases, Female -- surgery -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Colonic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Rectal Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Operative -- methods -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000880
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2151-8378

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The objective of this study was to determine if in-person interpreters improve patient satisfaction scores compared with phone interpreters for urogynecology office visits in limited English proficient (LEP) patients. Methods: Portuguese and Spanish LEP subjects were randomized to phone or in-person interpreter, and a 14-item questionnaire was administered with 3 subscales assessing the primary outcome of patient satisfaction with the interpreter, physician, and nursing. Subject demographics, English proficiency, overall health status, and yearly household income were recorded. Sample size calculations indicated that a mean difference of 12 in satisfaction scores could be detected with 44 subjects per arm. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics, and comparisons between the intervention versus control group were analyzed using Fisher exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and linear regression. Results: We enrolled and randomized 106 subjects, and 82 subjects completed the study. There was a statistically significant difference in subject satisfaction between randomization groups, favoring in-person interpreters. In the as-treated analysis, the median satisfaction score for the phone interpreter group was 92.9 and 100 for in-person interpreter group ( P < 0.001). Linear regression adjusted for English proficiency showed that there was a difference between median scores of 7.14 ( P = 0.002). Conclusions: Portuguese and Spanish LEP patients experienced higher satisfaction scores for urogynecology office visits when in-person interpreters are used compared with a phone interpreter. Although we found a statistically significant difference between these groups, the clinical significance of our finding is less clear. This topic should continue to be investigated for the field of urogynecology and further studies are needed. Abstract : Supplemental digital content is available in the text.