Abstract
Introduction Language barriers within clinical settings pose a threat to patient safety. As a potential impediment to understanding, they hinder the process of obtaining informed consent. This study investigates the impact of the current use of interpreters, with a particular focus on the efficacy of engaging laypersons as interpreters, rather than professional interpreters. A further objective is to explore the validity and reliability of phone-based telemedicine.
Methods In three groups (N per group = 30), we compared how using lay or professional interpreters affected non-German speaking patients’ subjectively perceived understanding (understood vs. not understood) and recollection (recollected vs. not recollected) of information about general anaesthesia. Fluent German speaking patients served as the control group. Statistical analyses (χ2 tests and binomial) were calculated to show differences between and within the groups.
Results All three groups indicated similar, high self-reported levels of having understood the medical information provided. This was in stark contrast to the assessed objective recollection data. In the lay interpreter group, recollection of anaesthesia facts was low; only around half of participants recalled specific facts. For patients supported by professional interpreters, their recollection of facts about anaesthesia was significantly enhanced and elevated to the same level of the control group (fluent in German). Moreover, for these patients, providing information by means of phone-based telemedicine before anaesthesia yielded high levels of understanding and recollection of anaesthesia facts.
Conclusion Phone-based telemedicine is a safe and reliable method of communication in the professional interpreter group and German speaking control group, but not in the lay interpreter group. Compared to lay interpreters, professional interpreters significantly improve patients’ uptake of critical information about general anaesthesia, thus highlighting the importance of professional interpreters for patient safety and informed consent.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki was provided by the Medical University of Vienna Ethics Committee (Nr. 2138/2017).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data to the questionnaire are included in Supplementary Section C
