Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33528631›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2021

Enhancing patient safety through the quality assured use of a low-tech video interpreting system to overcome language barriers in healthcare settings.

Maria Kletečka-Pulker, Sabine Parrag, Klara Doppler, Sabine Völkl-Kernstock, Michael Wagner, Thomas Wenzel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Perception of Nurses about Migrants after the COVID-19 Pandemic: Close Contact Improves the Relationship.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Kletečka-PulkerInstitute for Ethics and Law in Medicine, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2.8, Vienna, Austria. maria.kletecka-pulker@univie.ac.at.
Sabine ParragInstitute for Ethics and Law in Medicine, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2.8, Vienna, Austria.
Klara DopplerInstitute for Ethics and Law in Medicine, University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 2-4, Hof 2.8, Vienna, Austria.
Sabine Völkl-KernstockDepartment of Child and Youth Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Michael WagnerDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Thomas WenzelDepartment of Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professional interpretation and translation are key issues in the improvement of public health and patient safety in an area of increased migration and multicultural healthcare system needs. Patient safety requires clear and reliable communication to avoid errors in diagnosis, treatment, and neglect of informed consent. Due to the range of languages to be covered, telephone and video interpretation (VI) can be expected to face up to the demands for trained interpreters available on short notice and in more remote healthcare sites.In a pilot project, we implemented a new up to date model video interpretation unit and used a mixed methods approach integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing barriers encountered prior to the use of the pilot system and satisfaction with the use of video interpretation in a number of clinical settings, including inpatient and outpatient units, in Austria. Of all respondents (n = 144) 71% reported frequently encountering language barriers, only 37% reported the use of professional interpreters, 81% reported using siblings, parents or other non-professional interpreters, while a considerable percentage (66%) reported using gestures or drawings to communicate, resulting in very low overall satisfaction rate (only 12%) with the prior situation.In the qualitative study the users observed rapid availability, data protection compliance, ability to see the interpreter despite physical distance, absence of potential external influence resulting from personal relationships, user-friendly nature of the technique, legal certainty, absence of the requirement for personal presence, and cost savings as key benefits in the use of the new technology. Of the users of the system 88% (n = 58) rated it as very good (72%) or good (16%).

Indexed as

Patient SafetyTranslatingAustriaCommunication BarriersDelivery of Health CareHumansPilot ProjectsDigitalizationPatient safetyQuality improvementRemote interpreting

Identifiers

PMID33528631
PMCPMC8195952
OpenAlexW3127155815

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.