Author(s)
Helen H Soh, BS
Matt L Rohlfing, MD
Katherine R. Keefe, MD
Alex D Valentine, BS
Pieter J Noordzij, MD
Chris D. Brook, MD
Jessica R Levi, MD
Affiliation(s)
Boston University School of Medicine, MA; University of Utah School of Medicine, UT; Boston Medical Center, MA;
Abstract:
Objective:Effective communication between providers and patients is essential to patient care and to the patient-physician relationship. Studies have shown that patients with limited English Proficiency experience lower satisfaction and increased complications. Moreover, with the recent transition into Merit-based incentive payment system, understanding factors that may lower patient satisfaction has an increasing importance. This study seeks to explore the satisfaction of English speaking and limited English Proficiency patients with English speaking providers, focusing on interactions with different types of interpreters.
Methods: Patients with new and follow-up appointments in otolaryngology clinic were recruited to complete satisfaction surveys.
Results: A total of 209 patients were included in the final analysis. 65 utilized professional interpreter services, 9 used an ad-hoc interpreter, and 135 did not require an interpreter. Patients who used interpreter services demonstrated lower visit satisfaction compared with patients who did not (p<0.001). Patients expressed significantly greater preference for in-person interpreter (mean=9.73) or family member (mean=9.44) compared to telephone services (mean=8.50) (p=0.002). The overall survey scores, however, did not significantly differ between different interpreter types (p=0.157).
Conclusion: To our knowledge, there is no published study from the Otolaryngology clinic setting that defines limited English Proficiency patients' satisfaction as it relates to interpreter services. Existing studies in other specialties have shown mixed outcomes. In this study, limited English Proficiency patients experienced lower visit satisfaction compared to language concordant patients. While the patients did prefer in-person interpreters, there was no significant difference in overall visit satisfaction between different types of interpreters.