Comparing Remote Interpreter Modalities in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Primary Purpose
Limited English Proficient Patients and Families
Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Telephone Interpretation
Video Interpretation
Sponsored by

About this trial
This is an interventional health services research trial for Limited English Proficient Patients and Families
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
Sites / Locations
- Seattle Children's Hospital Emergency Department
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Experimental
Arm Label
Telephone Interpretation
Video Interpretation
Arm Description
These families will be assigned to use telephone interpretation throughout the ED visit.
These families will be assigned to use video interpretation throughout the ED visit.
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Communication Quality
We will use the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Child Visit Survey 2.0 communication composite, which includes 5 items.
Interpretation Quality
Interpretation quality will be measured with the Interpreter Satisfaction Survey (7 items).
Diagnosis Comprehension
Parents will be asked to name their child's diagnosis. Clinician-recorded diagnosis will be obtained from chart review for comparison. Responses will be classified as correct, incorrect, or vague/incomplete, using a method we have employed previously.
Consistency of Interpreter Use
Parents will be asked to report on the frequency with which providers used each of a list of potential communication methods (e.g. telephone interpreter, family or friend, spoke in English without an interpreter present). Response options are never, sometimes, frequently, or always.
Secondary Outcome Measures
Length of ED stay
Time from arrival in Emergency Department to discharge home or admission to the hospital.
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT01986179
First Posted
November 11, 2013
Last Updated
May 18, 2015
Sponsor
Seattle Children's Hospital
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01986179
Brief Title
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
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
May 2015
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
February 2014 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
August 2014 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
August 2014 (Actual)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Seattle Children's Hospital
4. Oversight
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
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.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Limited English Proficient Patients and Families
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Health Services Research
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Outcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
208 (Actual)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Telephone Interpretation
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
These families will be assigned to use telephone interpretation throughout the ED visit.
Arm Title
Video Interpretation
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
These families will be assigned to use video interpretation throughout the ED visit.
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Telephone Interpretation
Intervention Description
Professional interpretation provided over the phone by a national network of certified medical interpreters
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Video Interpretation
Intervention Description
Professional interpretation provided over video by a national network of certified medical interpreters
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Communication Quality
Description
We will use the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Child Visit Survey 2.0 communication composite, which includes 5 items.
Time Frame
Once, 1-7 days after the ED visit
Title
Interpretation Quality
Description
Interpretation quality will be measured with the Interpreter Satisfaction Survey (7 items).
Time Frame
Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Title
Diagnosis Comprehension
Description
Parents will be asked to name their child's diagnosis. Clinician-recorded diagnosis will be obtained from chart review for comparison. Responses will be classified as correct, incorrect, or vague/incomplete, using a method we have employed previously.
Time Frame
Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Title
Consistency of Interpreter Use
Description
Parents will be asked to report on the frequency with which providers used each of a list of potential communication methods (e.g. telephone interpreter, family or friend, spoke in English without an interpreter present). Response options are never, sometimes, frequently, or always.
Time Frame
Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Length of ED stay
Description
Time from arrival in Emergency Department to discharge home or admission to the hospital.
Time Frame
Once, after ED visit
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
1 Day
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
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
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
K. Casey Lion, MD, MPH
Organizational Affiliation
Seattle Children's Hospital
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Seattle Children's Hospital Emergency Department
City
Seattle
State/Province
Washington
ZIP/Postal Code
98105
Country
United States
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
33468598
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.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
26501862
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.
Results Reference
derived
Learn more about this trial
Comparing Remote Interpreter Modalities in the Pediatric Emergency Department
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs