396 - A Systematic Review of Interventions to Increase Professional Interpreting in Clinical Settings

Publication Number: 396.3625

Colleen K. Gutman, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States; Christina Rojas, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States; Lauren Waidner, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL, United States; Desiree Yeboah, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States; Emily A. Hartford, University of Washington, Bainbridge Island, WA, United States; Ronine Zamor, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, United States; Elyse N. Portillo, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States; K. Casey Lion, University of Washington/ Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States; Elisabeth Nylander, Seattle Children's, Seattle, WA, United States; Maria E. Garcia, University of California San Francisco, Berkeley, CA, United States

Background: Professional interpreting is underutilized despite evidence that it can reduce inequities for patients who use languages other than English (LOE).

Objective: We aimed to systematically review the literature to identify interventions that increase professional interpreter-mediated communication in clinical settings.

Design/Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE, and Web of Science through August 2024 for English publications assessing interventions to improve utilization of professional interpreting in medical settings (PROSPERO registration CRD42023454738). Each screening stage was conducted by two independent reviewers; conflicts were reviewed and resolved. For each included record, we extracted study setting and type, intervention details, and interpreter utilization outcomes. We assessed study quality using a modified tool adapted from two JBI critical appraisal tools (for cross-sectional and quasi-experimental studies) and the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set.

Results: Of 17952 records (Figure 1), 40 were eligible for inclusion, representing 39 intervention bundles (Table 1). Most interventions (n = 35, 90%) led to an increase in interpreter-mediated communication. Fifteen interventions (39%) took place in pediatric settings, including thirteen that took place in inpatient units or the emergency department of a single institution, one that took place across an entire children’s hospital, and one that took place across three pediatric residencies. Interventions most commonly included clinician education (n= 22, 56%), increasing access to remote professional interpreting devices (i.e., phone or video interpreting; n = 16, 41%), and making modifications in the electronic health record (e.g., to enhance awareness of interpreter need and documentation of interpreting; n = 14, 36%). Fifteen studies (39%) assessed interpreter-mediated communication events through systematically collected administrative data and 17 (44%) assessed interpreter-mediated communication during actual clinical encounters through patient reports (n = 6, 15%), provider reports (n = 3, 8%), or provider documentation in the electronic health record (n = 8, 22%).

Conclusion(s): A range of interventions can increase interpreter-mediated communication with patients with LOE. As most studies included multi-component interventions, there is a critical need to understand the discrete impact of specific strategies to best inform health systems efforts.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection


Table 1. Characteristics of included studies


Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection


Table 1. Characteristics of included studies