Nearly one third of BMT centers relied on family and friends to interpret for LEP patients

Description #

Despite guidelines discouraging the practice, nearly one third of BMT-center respondents reported relying on family and friends (ad hoc, non-qualified interpreters) to interpret for patients with LEP. This is reported as a practice gap in the appropriate use of interpreters.

"Across all geographic regions, respondents indicated that preferred language is self-reported by the patient (68%) but nearly one third reported that they rely on family and friends to interpret for patients with LEP." (Idossa, 2019, p. 1034)

"Nearly one third of respondents indicated using family and friends to interpret for patients." (Idossa, 2019, p. 1031)

Methods Context #

What? #ⓘ

The observable: who interprets for LEP patients at the transplant center, including reliance on family and friends as interpreters.

"Despite recommendations against the practice, non-qualified Bad hoc^ interpreters, such as family members and friends, are still used." (Idossa, 2019, p. 1036)

How? #ⓘ

A national cross-sectional, web-based survey of transplant-center staff self-reporting current language-access practices at their center.

"A national cross-sectional, web-based survey was administered by email to healthcare professionals and staff identified as the primary contact at NMDP/Be The Match network TCs in the U.S. (N = 139) through email." (Idossa, 2019, p. 1032)

Who? #ⓘ

The 82 transplant-center-staff respondents (59% response rate), predominantly social workers, across all U.S. census regions.

"The survey yielded a 59% response rate (N = 82). Most respondents were social workers (76%)." (Idossa, 2019, p. 1033)

Other Notes #

The authors frame this as a patient-safety and liability concern: "TCs should discontinue the use of unqualified interpreters, as this could result in misinterpretations and lead to patient safety concerns and liability issues for providers." (Idossa, 2019, p. 1036)

Caveats #

• Cross-sectional TC-staff survey (59 percent response) underrepresents small-volume centers and non-social-worker roles with high item missingness The estimates come from a cross-sectional web-based survey with a 59% response rate in which not every transplant center provided input; patient educators/advocates and transplant coordinators were poorly represented (respondents were overwhelmingly social workers), and small-volume centers (fewer than 100 BMTs/year) were underrepresented relative to medium and large centers. In addition, many items carried a relatively high percentage of missing responses (e.g., 16.5–22.8% missing on Table 3 items), which the authors attribute to respondents not knowing or the item not applying. Together these features limit the representativeness and precision of the reported frequencies of needs and barriers.