ArticlePalliative medicine reports2025
Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Performance of Check In for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information: A Communication Guide to Facilitate Pre-Encounter Huddles with Medical Interpreters Prior to Conversations Around Serious Illness.
Article in Palliative medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with non-English Language Preference are at risk of adverse health outcomes, particularly at end of life and during serious illness. Medical interpreters often feel unprepared to interpret conversations about serious illness. Best practice guidelines recommend a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter to better prepare both providers. The CHECK-IN (Check in for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information) guide is a simple communication tool designed to facilitate this pre-encounter huddle. We describe the results of a pilot feasibility study of the CHECK-IN guide performed in a simulation environment. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary performance of the CHECK-IN guide. Methods: This U.S.-based study is a single-center simulation-based nonblinded randomized pilot feasibility study. Participating clinicians were randomized to usual practice (control) vs. introduction to the CHECK-IN guide (intervention). Clinicians completed pre- and post-session surveys. Participating clinicians were evaluated using the Faculty Observation Rating Scale (FORS), Interpreter Scale (IS), and Interpreter Impact Rating Scale (IIRS). Results: Participants had a highly favorable opinion on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the CHECK-IN tool; 91% of participants agreed/strongly agreed on the acceptability of the tool, 91% agreed/strongly agreed on the appropriateness of the tool, and 100% agreed/strongly agreed on the feasibility of the tool. There were no statistical differences between control and intervention groups for the IS, IIRS, and FORS scores. Conclusion: The CHECK-IN guide is a promising tool to guide a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter, thereby improving interpreter-mediated communication when having conversations about serious illness.
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.