Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain.
A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews.
Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country.
Communication is a main challenge in migrant health and essential for patient safety. The aim of this study was to describe the satisfaction of caregivers with limited language proficiency (LLP) with care related to the use of interpreters and to explore underlying and interacting factors influencing satisfaction and self-advocacy.
A mixed-methods study.
Paediatric emergency department (PED) at a tertiary care hospital in Bern, Switzerland.
Caregivers visiting the PED were systematically screened for their language proficiency. Semistructured interviews were conducted with all LLP-caregivers agreeing to participate and their administrative data were extracted.
The study included 181 caregivers, 14 of whom received professional language interpretation. Caregivers who were assisted by professional interpretation services were more satisfied than those without (5.5 (SD)±1.4 vs 4.8 (SD)±1.6). Satisfaction was influenced by five main factors (relationship with health workers, patient management, alignment of health concepts, personal expectations, health outcome of the patient) which were modulated by communication. Of all LLP-caregivers without professional interpretation, 44.9% were satisfied with communication due to low expectations regarding the quality of communication, unawareness of the availability of professional interpretation and overestimation of own language skills, resulting in low self-advocacy.
The use of professional interpreters had a positive impact on the overall satisfaction of LLP-caregivers with emergency care. LLP-caregivers were not well—positioned to advocate for language interpretation. Healthcare providers must be aware of their responsibility to guarantee good-quality communication to ensure equitable quality of care and patient safety.
This study aims to evaluate the Language Access Systems Improvement (LASI) initiative’s impact on professional interpreter utilisation in primary care and to explore patient and clinician perspectives on professional interpreter use.
Multi methods: Quantitative natural experiment pre-LASI and post-LASI, qualitative semistructured interviews with clinicians and focus groups with patients post-LASI.
Large, academic primary care practice.
Cantonese, Mandarin, Spanish, English-speaking adult patients and their clinicians.
LASI initiative: Implementation of a clinician language proficiency test and simultaneous provision of on-demand access to professional interpreters via video medical interpretation.
Quantitative: Proportion of language discordant primary care visits which were professionally interpreted. Qualitative: Salient themes related to professional interpreter use and non-use.
The researchers categorised language concordance for 1475 visits with 152 unique clinicians; 698 were not fully language concordant (202 pre-LASI and 496 post-LASI). Professional interpreter utilisation increased (pre-LASI 57% vs post-LASI 66%; p=0.01); the visits with the lowest percentage of profssional interpreter use post-LASI were those in which clinicians and patients had partial language concordance. In inverse probability weighted analysis, restricting to 499 visits with strict estimated propensity score overlap (100% common support), post-LASI visits had higher odds of using a professional interpreter compared with pre-LASI visits (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.04 to 5.48). Qualitative results demonstrate video interpretation was convenient and well liked by both clinicians and patients. Some partially bilingual clinicians reported frustration with patient refusal of interpreter services; others reported using the video interpreters as a backup during visits. Views of the care-partner role differed for clinicians and patients. Clinicians reported sometimes having family interpret out of convenience or habit, whereas patients reported wanting family members present for support and advocacy, not interpretation.
LASI increased utilisation of professional interpreters; however, this was least prominent for partially language concordant visits. Health systems wishing to implement LASI or similar interventions will need to support clinicians and patients with partial bilingual skills in their efforts to use professional interpreters.
HSRP20153367.
Over the last few decades, there have been significant improvements in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the development of new treatments and guidelines for teamwork and patient self-care and access to digital tools. This study aimed to explore the experiences of individuals with RA interacting with healthcare. It also looked at how a self-care application, an educational programme called the ‘healthcare encounter’, improved patient–doctor communication.
Semistructured interviews were conducted, and qualitative content analysis was performed.
The potential participants, individuals with established, or under investigation for, RA diagnosis at rheumatology clinics in Sweden, were asked to participate in the study via a digital self-care application called the Elsa Science Self-care app.
Ten interviews were performed with participants from nine clinics following a meeting with the rheumatologist or other healthcare personnel between September 2022 and October 2022. Phrases, sentences or paragraphs referring to experiences from healthcare meetings and opinions about the digital programme were identified and coded. Codes that reflected similar concepts were grouped; subcategories were formulated, and categories were connected to their experiences and opinions.
Among our participants, three main categories emerged: the availability of healthcare, individual efforts to have a healthier life and personal interaction with healthcare. Participants described that the ‘healthcare encounter’ educational programme can be a source of information, which confirms, supports and creates a sense of control.
The participants valued being seen and taking part in a dialogue when they had prepared themselves (observed symptoms over time and prepared questions). The implementation of digital self-care applications might need to be incorporated into the healthcare setting, so that both the patients and the healthcare personnel have a shared understanding. Collaboration is essential in this context.
The inadequate provision of language interpretation for people with limited English proficiency (LEP) is a determinant of poor health, yet interpreters are underused. This research explores the experiences of National Health Service (NHS) staff providing primary care for people seeking asylum, housed in contingency accommodation during COVID-19. This group often have LEP and face multiple additional barriers to healthcare access. Language discrimination is used as a theoretical framework. The potential utility of this concept is explored as a way of understanding and addressing inequities in care.
Qualitative research using semistructured interviews and inductive thematic analysis.
An NHS primary care service for people seeking asylum based in contingency accommodation during COVID-19 housing superdiverse residents speaking a wide spectrum of languages.
Ten staff including doctors, nurses, mental health practitioners, healthcare assistants and students participated in semistructured online interviews. Some staff were redeployed to this work due to the pandemic.
All interviewees described patients’ LEP as significant. Inadequate provision of interpretation services impacted the staff’s ability to provide care and compromised patient safety. Discrimination, such as that based on migration status, was recognised and challenged by staff. However, inequity based on language was not articulated as discrimination. Instead, insufficient and substandard interpretation was accepted as the status quo and workarounds used, such as gesticulating or translation phone apps. The theoretical lens of language discrimination shows how this propagates existing social hierarchies and further disadvantages those with LEP.
This research provides empirical evidence of how the inadequate provision of interpreters forces the hand of healthcare staff to use shortcuts. Although this innovative ‘tinkering’ allows staff to get the job done, it risks normalising structural gaps in care provision for people with LEP. Policy-makers must rethink their approach to interpretation provision which prioritises costs over quality. We assert that the concept of language discrimination is a valuable framework for clinicians to better identify and articulate unfair treatment on the grounds of LEP.