Reevaluation of the effect of mandatory interpreter legislation on use of professional interpreters for ED patients with language barriers

Ginde, Adit A.; Sullivan, Ashley F.; Corel, Blanka; Caceres, J. Alfredo; Camargo, Carlos A.

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.023

« Previous Next »Patient Education and Counseling
Volume 81, Issue 2 , Pages 204-206, November 2010

Reevaluation of the effect of mandatory interpreter legislation on use of professional interpreters for ED patients with language barriers☆

Adit A. Ginde
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
- Corresponding author at: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, 12401 E. 17th Avenue, B-215 Aurora, CO 80045, USA. Tel.: +1 720 848 6777; fax: +1 720 848 7374.
Ashley F. Sullivan
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Blanka Corel
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
J. Alfredo Caceres
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Carlos A. Camargo Jr.
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Received 3 September 2009; received in revised form 8 January 2010; accepted 31 January 2010. published online 02 March 2010.

Abstract

Objective

We sought to compare emergency department (ED) use of professional interpreters in 2008 to previously reported 2002 data.

Methods

We surveyed consecutive adult patients for two 24-h periods at 4 Boston EDs in 2008. We used identical questions as in our 2002 study to assess English language barriers and to measure use and type of interpreter for those with language barriers.

Results

We enrolled 498 patients (66% of eligible). Of these, 8% had a significant English language barrier, but any interpreter was used for only 69% of these patients; the corresponding data for 2002 were 11% and 89%, respectively. In 2008, compared to 2002, professional interpreter use was similar (18% vs. 15%; p=0.70), but a friend or family member interpreted more often (59% vs. 24%; p<0.001), and hospital staff less often (10% vs. 47%; p<0.001).

Conclusion

We found that use of professional interpreters by Boston ED patients with language barriers remained low, despite publicity of the state mandatory interpreter law. However, a majority were comfortable with a friend or family member serving as the interpreter for the clinical encounter, a finding that may contribute to the limited usage of professional interpreters.

Keywords: Interpreters, Language barriers, Emergency department, Immigrants, Communication