Trial reportJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety2020
Deficiencies in Provider-Reported Interpreter Use in a Clinical Trial Comparing Telephonic and Video Interpretation in a Pediatric Emergency Department.
Trial report in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technological translation tools for official language minorities in primary and emergency care: A rapid scoping review and environmental scan.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Hospitalized Patients with Non-English Language Preference Experience Fewer Room Visits.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Inclusion of language preference in clinical o ne-Liners and its association with use and documentation of interpreter services among inpatients with non-English language preference.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- A sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial comparing web-based education to mobile video interpreter access for improving provider interpreter use in primary care clinics: the mVOCAL hybrid type 3 study protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Perspectives of Healthcare Providers towards Remote Medical Interpreting Services in Japan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prevalent practices amongst healthcare professionals in paediatric settings in using medical interpreters for families with limited national language proficiency: A narrative scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2022Article
- Breaking through barriers: the need for effective research to promote language-concordant communication as a facilitator of equitable emergency care.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProfessional interpretation improves health care quality and outcomes for limited English proficient (LEP) patients, yet interpreter use remains low even when interpretation is available remotely. The researchers analyzed the effect of remote interpretation (telephone or video) on pediatric emergency provider attitudes and behaviors around professional interpretation.
methodsA cross-sectional questionnaire of pediatric emergency providers was conducted as part of a randomized trial of telephone vs. video interpretation with Spanish speaking LEP families. Providers recalled lapses of professional interpretation for medical communication (use of an ad hoc or no interpreter), if they had delayed or deferred communication due to the need for professional interpretation, and were asked about their satisfaction with the interpretation modality. Bivariate and multivariate analysis of professional interpreter use and communication behaviors were analyzed by self-report of study group assignment.
resultsOne third of providers reported lapses of professional interpretation and many reported less frequent (45.6%) and deferred (34.6%) communication due to the need for interpretation. There was no significant difference in these outcomes between telephone and video assignment. Interpreter skill and technical difficulties were similar between groups. Providers assigned to telephone, compared to video, were more likely to be dissatisfied (p < 0.001) and to report that interpretation was ineffective (p = 0.002).
conclusionDespite access to interpretation, providers caring for patients enrolled in a study of professional interpreter modalities reported frequent lapses in professional interpretation and deferring or delaying communication because an interpreter was needed. Addressing barriers to remote interpreter use will improve quality of care and health equity for LEP patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.