Open AccessEffect of Spanish Interpretation Method on Patient Satisfaction in an Urban Walk‐in Clinic
Author(s) -
Lee Linda J.,
Batal Holly A.,
Maselli Judith H.,
Kutner Jean S.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
journal of general internal medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.746
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 1525-1497
pISSN - 0884-8734
DOI - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10742.x
Subject(s) - medicine , interpreter , language barrier , concordance , active listening , patient satisfaction , limited english proficiency , ethnic group , health literacy , logistic regression , family medicine , post hoc analysis , health care , nursing , linguistics , psychology , philosophy , communication , sociology , computer science , anthropology , economics , programming language , economic growth
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of Spanish interpretation method on satisfaction with care. DESIGN: Self‐administered post‐visit questionnaire. SETTING: Urban, university‐affiliated walk‐in clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Adult, English‐ and Spanish‐speaking patients presenting for acute care of non‐emergent medical problems. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Satisfaction with overall clinic visit and with 7 provider characteristics was evaluated by multiple logistic regression, controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, education, insurance status, having a routine source of medical care, and baseline health. “Language‐concordant” patients, defined as Spanish‐speaking patients seen by Spanish‐speaking providers and English‐speaking patients, and patients using AT&T telephone interpreters reported identical overall visit satisfaction (77%; P = .57), while those using family or ad hoc interpreters were significantly less satisfied (54% and 49%; P < .01 and P = .007, respectively). AT&T interpreter use and language concordance also yielded similar satisfaction rates for provider characteristics ( P > .2 for all values). Compared to language‐concordant patients, patients who had family members interpret were less satisfied with provider listening (62% vs 85%; P = .003), discussion of sensitive issues (60% vs 76%; P = .02), and manner (62% vs 89%; P = .005). Patients who used ad hoc interpreters were less satisfied with provider skills (60% vs 83%; P = .02), manner (71% vs 89%; P = .02), listening (54% vs 85%; P = .002), explanations (57% vs 84%; P = .02), answers (57% vs 84%; P = .05), and support (63% vs 84%; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Spanish‐speaking patients using AT&T telephone interpretation are as satisfied with care as those seeing language‐concordant providers, while patients using family or ad hoc interpreters are less satisfied. Clinics serving a large population of Spanish‐speaking patients can enhance patient satisfaction by avoiding the use of untrained interpreters, such as family or ad hoc interpreters.