Telephone and VRI were chosen over in-person interpreters mainly for unstaffed languages long waits or known unavailability

Description #

For the 38 of 67 non-in-person cases where a reason was recorded, telephone or VRI services were chosen over an in-person interpreter mainly because in-person interpreters were not on staff for that primary language (14 patient events), because in-person wait times were too long (13 events), or because in-person interpreters were known to be unavailable at the time of request (10 events). In one instance VRI was chosen first but a VRI interpreter was unavailable, so an in-person interpreter was contacted instead; in only two cases did patients refuse interpretive services. Reported in the Results text; no dedicated figure or table.

"Reasons for choosing to use either telephone interpretive services or professional VRI services rather than in person interpreters were available for 38 of the 67 patients in which in person interpreters were not used. The three most common reasons for use of telephone interpretive services or professional VRI services included patients with primary languages where in-person interpreters were not on staff (14 patient events), the wait times for in person interpreters were too long (13 patient events), and in person interpreters were known to be unavailable (10 patient events) at the time of the initial request." (Burkle, 2017, p. 3)

Methods Context #

What? #ⓘ

The observable: the recorded reason for using telephone or VRI interpreting rather than an in-person interpreter.

"the reason for using the telephone interpretive services or professional VRI services rather than an in person interpreter was also recorded." (Burkle, 2017, p. 2)

How? #ⓘ

Prospective observational logging of the stated reason for each non-in-person modality choice over ~2.5 months in 2016, with descriptive tallying of reason frequencies. See A-0008ArtifactA-0008Initial AI draftMayo Clinic tri-modal professional language services (in-person, telephone, VRI)The language-services department of a private, not-for-profit, quaternary-care US institution (Mayo Clinic) provides interpretive assistance to LEP patients across its surgical and procedural areas, aiming to meet federa….

"Additionally, the reason for using the telephone interpretive services or professional VRI services rather than an in person interpreter was also recorded." (Burkle, 2017, p. 2)

Who? #ⓘ

38 of 67 LEP patients who did not use an in-person interpreter (those with a recorded reason), in the surgical/procedural areas of a single private, not-for-profit, quaternary-care US institution.

"Reasons for choosing to use either telephone interpretive services or professional VRI services rather than in person interpreters were available for 38 of the 67 patients in which in person interpreters were not used." (Burkle, 2017, p. 3)

Other Notes #

Reasons were captured for only 38 of 67 non-in-person cases (57%), so the reason tallies undercount total events (see qualifying caveat). The reasons show telephone/VRI functioning as a backstop for in-person coverage gaps rather than a preferred modality.

Caveats #

• Reasons for non-in-person modality were recorded for only 38 of 67 cases A reason for choosing telephone or VRI over an in-person interpreter was recorded for only 38 of the 67 cases in which an in-person interpreter was not used (57%). The reason tallies (unstaffed language 14, wait too long 13, known unavailable 10) therefore undercount the true distribution of reasons and could be biased if the 29 unrecorded cases differed systematically from those captured.