Professional Interpreter Use When a Child is Dying: A Survey of Pediatric Critical Care Clinicians.

Q1 Nursing
Sean Larsen, Jennifer Needle, Elaine Hsieh, Michael D Evans, Miriam C Shapiro
{"title":"Professional Interpreter Use When a Child is Dying: A Survey of Pediatric Critical Care Clinicians.","authors":"Sean Larsen, Jennifer Needle, Elaine Hsieh, Michael D Evans, Miriam C Shapiro","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2024-008037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Approximately 67.8 million people in the United States population speak a language other than English (LOE). Within the health care setting, professional interpreters are critical to providing quality patient care. How pediatric clinicians engage with interpreters is understudied. Our goal was to explore pediatric intensive care unit (PICU)-clinician practices related to interpreter services at time of withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in patients who speak an LOE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 44-question web-based survey was distributed via 2 pediatric critical care listservs. Demographics of respondents, types of interpreters available, how interpreters are used, and clinician perception of interpreter services were collected. Comparisons were made using the paired t test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>About 176 clinicians completed the survey. Significant differences were seen between in-person and remote interpreters regarding the percentage of clinicians who brief interpreters prior to engaging with the patient/family (84% vs 42%; P < .0001) and confidence in (1) interpretation of their words (72% vs 41%; P < .0001), (2) the communication of the general context of the conversation (89% vs 53%; P < .0001), and (3) in interpreters using their cultural understanding to aid the conversion (79% vs 41%; P < .0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PICU-clinician engagement and confidence in interpreters was significantly higher for in-person than remote interpreting modalities. We have identified multiple opportunities for improvement in communication between LOE families and clinicians including interpreter briefing, expansion of in-person interpreter availability, and expansion of education on partnering with professional medical interpreters.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2024-008037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Approximately 67.8 million people in the United States population speak a language other than English (LOE). Within the health care setting, professional interpreters are critical to providing quality patient care. How pediatric clinicians engage with interpreters is understudied. Our goal was to explore pediatric intensive care unit (PICU)-clinician practices related to interpreter services at time of withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in patients who speak an LOE.

Methods: A 44-question web-based survey was distributed via 2 pediatric critical care listservs. Demographics of respondents, types of interpreters available, how interpreters are used, and clinician perception of interpreter services were collected. Comparisons were made using the paired t test.

Results: About 176 clinicians completed the survey. Significant differences were seen between in-person and remote interpreters regarding the percentage of clinicians who brief interpreters prior to engaging with the patient/family (84% vs 42%; P < .0001) and confidence in (1) interpretation of their words (72% vs 41%; P < .0001), (2) the communication of the general context of the conversation (89% vs 53%; P < .0001), and (3) in interpreters using their cultural understanding to aid the conversion (79% vs 41%; P < .0001).

Conclusions: PICU-clinician engagement and confidence in interpreters was significantly higher for in-person than remote interpreting modalities. We have identified multiple opportunities for improvement in communication between LOE families and clinicians including interpreter briefing, expansion of in-person interpreter availability, and expansion of education on partnering with professional medical interpreters.

目标:美国人口中约有 6780 万人说英语以外的语言 (LOE)。在医疗环境中,专业口译人员对于提供高质量的患者护理至关重要。儿科临床医生如何与口译人员打交道还没有得到充分研究。我们的目标是探索儿科重症监护室(PICU)的临床医生在对讲非英语语言的患者停止维持生命的治疗时与口译服务相关的做法:方法: 通过 2 个儿科重症监护列表服务器分发了一份包含 44 个问题的网络调查。调查收集了受访者的人口统计学特征、可用口译员的类型、口译员的使用方式以及临床医生对口译服务的看法。比较采用配对 t 检验:约有 176 名临床医生完成了调查。在与患者/家属接触前向口译员简要介绍情况的临床医生比例方面,面对面口译员和远程口译员之间存在显著差异(84% vs 42%;P 结论:PICU-临床医生的参与度和对口译员服务的信任度均高于远程口译员:PICU 临床医生对口译员的参与度和信任度在面对面口译模式下明显高于远程口译模式。我们发现了改善 LOE 患者家属与临床医生之间沟通的多种机会,包括口译员简报、扩大现场口译员的可用性以及扩大与专业医疗口译员合作的教育。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hospital pediatrics
Hospital pediatrics Nursing-Pediatrics
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
204
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信