Clinical trial NCT01986179: Comparing Remote Interpreter Modalities in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Official title: Impact of Remote Interpreter Modality on Comprehension, Communication Quality, and Consistency of Interpreter Use in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Limited English Proficient Patients and Families
Lead sponsor: Seattle Children's Hospital
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2013-11-18
Enrollment: 208
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 1
Maximum age (years): 18
Standard ages: CHILD
ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Brief summary: Professional interpretation improves quality of care for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). However, many health care settings lack access to professional interpreters, and even in locations with good access, logistical factors and perceived barriers have limited their widespread use. Remote methods of professional interpretation, including telephone and video, hold great promise for expanding access, but only limited data exist on the relative impacts of these modalities on patient care and provider uptake. Comparing how these modalities impact multiple aspects of health care quality, including family comprehension, provider communication, and consistency of provider interpreter use will inform dissemination of strategies for delivery of safe, efficient, and equitable care to LEP families.

Aim 1: To determine whether randomly assigned remote interpreter modality (telephone versus video) impacts parent-reported quality of communication and interpretation, diagnosis comprehension, and length of stay (LOS) among LEP Spanish-speaking families seen in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED).

Hypothesis 1: Parent-reported quality of communication and interpretation and parent diagnosis comprehension will be higher among families assigned to video interpretation compared to telephone interpretation.

Hypothesis 2: LOS will not differ between families assigned to video and telephone interpretation.

Aim 2: To determine whether assigned interpreter modality is associated with provider decision to communicate without professional interpretation.

Hypothesis 3: Parent-reported provider communication without professional interpretation (e.g. using the patient or a family member to interpret for some part of the visit) will be lower for families assigned to video interpretation compared to telephone interpretation.


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Preferred language for medical care of Spanish
* At least one primary caregiver requires interpretation
* Presenting to Seattle Children's ED during recruiting hours

Exclusion Criteria:

* Triage level 1 (life-threatening illness)
* No parent or legal guardian present
* Reason for visit is concern for abuse
* reason for visit is primary behavioral or psychiatric complaint

Primary outcomes:
measure: Communication Quality
timeFrame: Once, 1-7 days after the ED visit
measure: Interpretation Quality
timeFrame: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
measure: Diagnosis Comprehension
timeFrame: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
measure: Consistency of Interpreter Use
timeFrame: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Length of ED stay
timeFrame: Once, after ED visit
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Seattle
country: United States
facility: Seattle Children's Hospital Emergency Department
state: Washington
Study officials:
affiliation: Seattle Children's Hospital
name: K. Casey Lion, MD, MPH
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Lion KC, Gritton J, Scannell J, Brown JC, Ebel BE, Klein EJ, Mangione-Smith R. Patterns and Predictors of Professional Interpreter Use in the Pediatric Emergency Department. Pediatrics. 2021 Feb;147(2):e20193312. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3312.
citation: Lion KC, Brown JC, Ebel BE, Klein EJ, Strelitz B, Gutman CK, Hencz P, Fernandez J, Mangione-Smith R. Effect of Telephone vs Video Interpretation on Parent Comprehension, Communication, and Utilization in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Dec;169(12):1117-25. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2630.