Aims: Immigrants, refugees, and their descendants comprise 12% of Denmark’s population. Some of these people do not speak or understand Danish well enough to communicate with the staff in a healthcare setting and therefore need interpreter services. Interpretation through video conferencing equipment (video interpretation) is frequently used and creates a forum where the interpreter is not physically present in the medical consultation. The aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes to and experiences with video interpretation among charge nurses in a Danish university hospital. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was sent to 99 charge nurses. The questionnaire comprised both closed and open-ended questions. The answers were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic text condensation. Results: Of the 99 charge nurses, 78 (79%) completed the questionnaire. Most charge nurses, 21 (91%) of the daily/monthly users, and 21 (72%) of the monthly/yearly users, said that video interpretation increased the quality of their conversations with patients. A total of 19 (24%) departments had not used video interpretation within the last 12 months. Conclusions: The more the charge nurses used video interpretation, the more satisfied they were. Most of the charge nurses using video interpretation expressed satisfaction with the technology and found it easy to use. Some charge nurses are still content to allow family or friends to interpret. To reach its full potential, video interpretation technology has to be reliable and easily accessible for any consultation, including at the bedside.
Danmarks Statistik. Indvandrere i Danmark2015. København2015.
2.
KarlinerLSJacobsEAChenAHet al. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited english proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. J Health Serv Res Pol2007; 42: 727–754.
3.
NielsenDSvaboAKorsholmKMet al. Kun en tåbe frygter ikke sproget. Indvandrermedicinsk Klinik (OUH) Center for Global Sundhed (SDU).
4.
NielsenDSSvaboAKorsholmKMSodemannM. Kun en tåbe frygter ikke sproget. Indvandrermedicinsk Klinik, Infektionsmedicinsk Afdeling: Odense Universitetshospital, 2011.
5.
NielsenSSHemplerNFWaldorffFBet al. Is there equity in use of healthcare services among immigrants, their descendants, and ethnic Danes?Scand J Public Health2012; 40: 260–270.
6.
LionKCBrownJCEbelBEet al. Effect of telephone vs video interpretation on parent comprehension, communication, and utilization in the pediatric emergency department: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics2015; 169: 1117–1125.
7.
LocatisCWilliamsonDGould-KablerCet al. Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation. J Gen Intern Med2010; 25: 345–350.
8.
O’ReillyRBishopJMaddoxKet al. Is telepsychiatry equivalent to face-to-face psychiatry? Results from a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Psychiat Serv (Washington, DC)2007; 58: 836–843.
9.
SimpsonSGReidCL.Therapeutic alliance in videoconferencing psychotherapy: a review. Austr J Rural Health2014; 22: 280–299.
10.
JonesDGillPHarrisonRMeakinRWallaceP.An exploratory study of language interpretation services provided by videoconferencing. J Telemed Telecare. 2003; 9:51–56.
11.
SøbjergLMLouSValentinGHBrandtKB. Evaluering af Teletolkeprojektet - Implementering af et telemedicinsk redskab på danske hospitaler. Aarhus: Region Midtjylland, CFK • Folkesundhed og Kvalitetsudvikling, MTV og Sundhedstjenesteforskning, 2013.
12.
HirschJMaranoF.Better patient care through video interpretation. A New Jersey hospital uses teleconferencing tools and interpreters to break down patient language and hearing barriers. Health Manag Technol2007; 28: 30–37.
13.
Institut for Menneskerettigheder. Lige adgang til sundhed – en analyse af praktiserende lægers møde med patienter med etnisk minoritetsbaggrundKøbenhavn: Institut for Menneskerettigheder, 2014.
14.
MedCom. Teletolkeprojektet. MedCom - Det danske Sundhedsdatanet, 2013.
15.
LeblancGGagnonMPSandersonD.Determinants of primary care nurses’ intention to adopt an electronic health record in their clinical practice. Comput Inform Nurs2012; 30: 496–502.
16.
MedCom. Teletolkning. MedCom - Det danske Sundhedsdatanet, 2014.
17.
JørgensenLPedersenCD.Evaluering af projekt vedr. tolkning via videokonference på Odense Universitetshospital og Kolding Sygehus – en MTV. Udarbejdet af: Lisbeth Jørgensen (Odense Universitetshospital) og Claus Duedal Pedersen (MedCom): Region Syddanmark, 2008.
18.
Region of Southern Denmark. Odense University Hospital and Svendborg Sygehus - Using IT and digital health services to improve quality of care for our patients. 2013, p. 16.
19.
Danske Regioner. Regioner går sammen om at sende tolkeydelser i udbud. København: Danske Regioner, 2016.
20.
CurrellRUrquhartCWainwrightPet al. Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2000: Cd002098.
21.
WoffordJLCamposCLJohnsonDAet al. Providing a Spanish interpreter using low-cost videoconferencing in a community study computers. J Innov Health Inform2013; 20: 141–146.
22.
Odense University Hospital. Nøgletal for OUH, 2014.
23.
KvaleS.InterView - En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview. København: Hans Reitzel Forlag, 1997, p. 318.
24.
VandervortEBMelkusGD.Linguistic services in ambulatory clinics. J Transcult Nurs2003; 14: 358–366.
25.
HadziabdicEAlbinBHeikkilaKet al. Family members’ experiences of the use of interpreters in healthcare. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2014; 15: 156–169.
26.
HadziabdicEHjelmK.Working with interpreters: practical advice for use of an interpreter in healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc2013; 11: 69–76.
27.
EklöfNHupliMLeino-KilpiH.Nurses’ perceptions of working with immigrant patients and interpreters in Finland. Public Health Nurs2015; 32: 143–150.
28.
GraversenCJacobsenBNørgaard JappeA. Translatørforeningens tolkeudvalg. Tolkning i den offentlige sektor: den aktuelle situation. Translatørforeningens tolkeudvalg: København, 2015.
29.
JacobsenB.Tolkning i det offentlige: Norge og Sverige. Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus Universitet: Institut fir Erhvervskommunikation, 2012.
30.
DiamondLCSchenkerYCurryLet al. Getting by: underuse of interpreters by resident physicians. J Gen Intern Med2009; 24: 256–262.
31.
JacobsEADiamondLCStevakL.The importance of teaching clinicians when and how to work with interpreters. Patient Educ Couns2010; 78: 149–153.
32.
JaroensawatBWankijcharoenS.The tele-interpreter service at the Bangkok Hospital Medical Center, Thailand. World Hosp Health Serv2013; 49: 30–32.
33.
AzarminaPWallaceP.Remote interpretation in medical encounters: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare2005; 11: 140–145.
34.
DiamondLCSchenkerYCurryLet al. Getting by: underuse of interpreters by resident physicians. J Gen Intern Med2009; 24: 256–262.
35.
HunicheLOlesenF.Teknologi i sundhedspraksis. København: Munksgaard, 2014.
36.
BirklerJDahlMR.Den digitale patient. København: Nota, 2013, p. 153.
37.
HoldenRJKarshBT.The technology Acceptance Model: Its Past And Its Future In Health Care. J Biomed Inform2010; 43: 159–172.
38.
GaravandAMohseniMAsadiHet al. Factors influencing the adoption of health information technologies: a systematic review. Electron Physician2016; 8: 2713–2718.
39.
SchenkerYLoBEttingerKMet al. Navigating language barriers under difficult circumstances. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149: 264–269.
40.
BischoffADenhaerynckK.What do language barriers cost? An exploratory study among asylum seekers in Switzerland. BMC Health Serv Res2010; 10: 248.
41.
BischoffAHudelsonP.Communicating with foreign language-speaking patients: is access to professional interpreters enough?J Travel Med. 2010; 17: 15–20.
42.
Sundhedsloven. Kapitel 9 - Tavshedspligt, videregivelse og indhentning af helbredsoplysninger m.v.
43.
TariqSWoodmanJ.Using mixed methods in health research. JRSM Short Rep2013; 4: 2042533313479197.
44.
PadgettDK.Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., p.1–29.
