Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Performance of Check In for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information: A Communication Guide to Facilitate Pre-Encounter Huddles with Medical Interpreters Prior to Conversations Around Serious Illness.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Palliative medicine reports Pub Date : 2025-10-27 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26892820251390817
Mei-Ean Yeow, Daniel K Partain, Heather J Carmack, Megan Brandeland, Graciela D Porraz Capetillo, Karen M Fischer, Abraham Labrada Santiago, Ibrahim S Karakus, Amelia Barwise
{"title":"Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Performance of Check In for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information: A Communication Guide to Facilitate Pre-Encounter Huddles with Medical Interpreters Prior to Conversations Around Serious Illness.","authors":"Mei-Ean Yeow, Daniel K Partain, Heather J Carmack, Megan Brandeland, Graciela D Porraz Capetillo, Karen M Fischer, Abraham Labrada Santiago, Ibrahim S Karakus, Amelia Barwise","doi":"10.1177/26892820251390817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with non-English Language Preference are at risk of adverse health outcomes, particularly at end of life and during serious illness. Medical interpreters often feel unprepared to interpret conversations about serious illness. Best practice guidelines recommend a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter to better prepare both providers. The CHECK-IN (Check in for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information) guide is a simple communication tool designed to facilitate this pre-encounter huddle. We describe the results of a pilot feasibility study of the CHECK-IN guide performed in a simulation environment. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary performance of the CHECK-IN guide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This U.S.-based study is a single-center simulation-based nonblinded randomized pilot feasibility study. Participating clinicians were randomized to usual practice (control) vs. introduction to the CHECK-IN guide (intervention). Clinicians completed pre- and post-session surveys. Participating clinicians were evaluated using the Faculty Observation Rating Scale (FORS), Interpreter Scale (IS), and Interpreter Impact Rating Scale (IIRS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants had a highly favorable opinion on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the CHECK-IN tool; 91% of participants agreed/strongly agreed on the acceptability of the tool, 91% agreed/strongly agreed on the appropriateness of the tool, and 100% agreed/strongly agreed on the feasibility of the tool. There were no statistical differences between control and intervention groups for the IS, IIRS, and FORS scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CHECK-IN guide is a promising tool to guide a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter, thereby improving interpreter-mediated communication when having conversations about serious illness.</p>","PeriodicalId":74394,"journal":{"name":"Palliative medicine reports","volume":"6 1","pages":"533-541"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12670661/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative medicine reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26892820251390817","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with non-English Language Preference are at risk of adverse health outcomes, particularly at end of life and during serious illness. Medical interpreters often feel unprepared to interpret conversations about serious illness. Best practice guidelines recommend a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter to better prepare both providers. The CHECK-IN (Check in for Exchange of Clinical and Key Information) guide is a simple communication tool designed to facilitate this pre-encounter huddle. We describe the results of a pilot feasibility study of the CHECK-IN guide performed in a simulation environment. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary performance of the CHECK-IN guide.

Methods: This U.S.-based study is a single-center simulation-based nonblinded randomized pilot feasibility study. Participating clinicians were randomized to usual practice (control) vs. introduction to the CHECK-IN guide (intervention). Clinicians completed pre- and post-session surveys. Participating clinicians were evaluated using the Faculty Observation Rating Scale (FORS), Interpreter Scale (IS), and Interpreter Impact Rating Scale (IIRS).

Results: Participants had a highly favorable opinion on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the CHECK-IN tool; 91% of participants agreed/strongly agreed on the acceptability of the tool, 91% agreed/strongly agreed on the appropriateness of the tool, and 100% agreed/strongly agreed on the feasibility of the tool. There were no statistical differences between control and intervention groups for the IS, IIRS, and FORS scores.

Conclusion: The CHECK-IN guide is a promising tool to guide a pre-encounter huddle between clinician and interpreter, thereby improving interpreter-mediated communication when having conversations about serious illness.

Abstract Image

临床和关键信息交换签到的可行性、可接受性和初步表现:在重大疾病对话之前促进与医疗口译员会面前的沟通指南。
背景:非英语语言偏好的患者存在不良健康结果的风险,特别是在生命末期和严重疾病期间。医疗口译员在翻译有关严重疾病的对话时常常感到措手不及。最佳实践指南建议在临床医生和口译员之间进行会诊前的会面,以更好地为双方提供服务。登记(交换临床和关键信息登记)指南是一个简单的沟通工具,旨在促进这种相遇前的聚会。我们描述了在模拟环境中执行的CHECK-IN指南的试点可行性研究的结果。本研究的主要目的是评估CHECK-IN指南的可行性、可接受性和初步性能。方法:这项基于美国的研究是一项基于单中心模拟的非盲随机试点可行性研究。参与的临床医生被随机分为常规治疗组(对照组)和介绍检查指南组(干预组)。临床医生完成了治疗前和治疗后的调查。使用教师观察评定量表(FORS)、口译员评定量表(IS)和口译员影响评定量表(IIRS)对参与的临床医生进行评估。结果:参与者对CHECK-IN工具的可接受性、适当性和可行性有很高的评价;91%的参与者同意/强烈同意该工具的可接受性,91%同意/强烈同意该工具的适当性,100%同意/强烈同意该工具的可行性。在IS、IIRS和FORS评分方面,对照组和干预组之间没有统计学差异。结论:CHECK-IN指南是一种很有前途的工具,可以指导临床医生和口译员在会诊前的会面,从而改善口译员在讨论严重疾病时的沟通。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书