This study aims to evaluate the usage and implementation of video remote (VR) interpreting and telephone remote (TR) interpreting in primary healthcare settings.

This publication forms part of a larger three-pronged study in which we compared both remote interpreting modalities to each other and to a control group. This paper conveys the findings of the qualitative evaluation of the implementation and usage of both remote interpreting solutions. The quantitative evaluation of the 6-month intervention period (September 2018–February 2019) has been reported previously. After this period, we conducted focus groups with the healthcare professionals involved. The focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the structured qualitative content analysis.

We provided either VR or TR tools to 10 different primary healthcare practices (general medicine, gynaecology and paediatrics) in the city of Hamburg, Germany.

Three physicians and two physician’s assistants took part in the TR focus group. The VR focus group consisted of four physicians.

The main topics identified were the importance of communication for diagnostic and therapeutic processes, previous solutions to language barriers, as well as advantages and disadvantages of the two remote interpreting solutions. Advantages included the possibility to adequately communicate with language discordant patients and the high quality of the interpreting. Disadvantages included the habituation time required for new technology as well as time constraints.

Our evaluation found that these solutions were highly appreciated, if not considered indispensable, for the delivery of appropriate medical care to language-discordant patients. Differences between the two modalities were named and concrete suggestions for improvement were made. Policy-makers should consider providing VR or TR as an adequate and safe interpreting service alternative when professional in-person interpreters are not available or too expensive.