Limited English Proficient Patients and FamiliesNCT01986179
Comparing Remote Interpreter Modalities in the Pediatric Emergency Department
A study testing Telephone Interpretation and Video Interpretation in people with Limited English Proficient Patients and Families, run by Seattle Children's Hospital at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Professional interpretation improves quality of care for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). However, many health care settings lack access to professional interpreters, and even in locations with good access, logistical factors and perceived barriers have limited their widespread use. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 1 day to 18 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Limited English Proficient Patients and Families
- What is being tested?
- Telephone Interpretation and Video Interpretation
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 208 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2014to Aug 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 1 day to 18 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Preferred language for medical care of Spanish
- At least one primary caregiver requires interpretation
- Presenting to Seattle Children's ED during recruiting hours
Who cannot join
- Triage level 1 (life-threatening illness)
- No parent or legal guardian present
- Reason for visit is concern for abuse
- reason for visit is primary behavioral or psychiatric complaint
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Seattle Children's Hospital Emergency Department
Seattle, Washington, 98105
About this study
Official title: Impact of Remote Interpreter Modality on Comprehension, Communication Quality, and Consistency of Interpreter Use in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Professional interpretation improves quality of care for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). However, many health care settings lack access to professional interpreters, and even in locations with good access, logistical factors and perceived barriers have limited their widespread use. Remote methods of professional interpretation, including telephone and video, hold great promise for expanding access, but only limited data exist on the relative impacts of these modalities on patient care and provider uptake. Comparing how these modalities impact multiple aspects of health care quality, including family comprehension, provider communication, and consistency of provider interpreter use will inform dissemination of strategies for delivery of safe, efficient, and equitable care to LEP families.
Aim 1: To determine whether randomly assigned remote interpreter modality (telephone versus video) impacts parent-reported quality of communication and interpretation, diagnosis comprehension, and length of stay (LOS) among LEP Spanish-speaking families seen in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED).
Read more
Hypothesis 1: Parent-reported quality of communication and interpretation and parent diagnosis comprehension will be higher among families assigned to video interpretation compared to telephone interpretation.
Hypothesis 2: LOS will not differ between families assigned to video and telephone interpretation.
Aim 2: To determine whether assigned interpreter modality is associated with provider decision to communicate without professional interpretation.
Hypothesis 3: Parent-reported provider communication without professional interpretation (e.g. using the patient or a family member to interpret for some part of the visit) will be lower for families assigned to video interpretation compared to telephone interpretation.
- Being tested
- Telephone Interpretation, Video Interpretation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Telephone InterpretationOther
Professional interpretation provided over the phone by a national network of certified medical interpreters
Video InterpretationOther
Professional interpretation provided over video by a national network of certified medical interpreters
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Telephone Interpretation | Active comparator | These families will be assigned to use telephone interpretation throughout the ED visit. Receives: Other: Telephone Interpretation |
| Video Interpretation | Experimental | These families will be assigned to use video interpretation throughout the ED visit. Receives: Other: Video Interpretation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Communication Quality
We will use the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Child Visit Survey 2.0 communication composite, which includes 5 items.
Measured: Once, 1-7 days after the ED visit
Interpretation Quality
Interpretation quality will be measured with the Interpreter Satisfaction Survey (7 items).
Measured: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Diagnosis Comprehension
Parents will be asked to name their child's diagnosis. Clinician-recorded diagnosis will be obtained from chart review for comparison. Responses will be classified as correct, incorrect, or vague/incomplete, using a method we have employed previously.
Measured: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Consistency of Interpreter Use
Parents will be asked to report on the frequency with which providers used each of a list of potential communication methods (e.g. telephone interpreter, family or friend, spoke in English without an interpreter present). Response options are never, sometimes, frequently, or always.
Measured: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Secondary outcomes (1)
Length of ED stay
Time from arrival in Emergency Department to discharge home or admission to the hospital.
Measured: Once, after ED visit
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Nov 2013 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2014
- Primary completionAug 2014
- Study completionAug 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Limited English Proficient Patients and FamiliesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Seattle Children's HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 208 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Seattle Children's Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, K. Casey Lion, Seattle Children's Hospital
- Investigators
- K. Casey Lion, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, Seattle Children's Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01986179
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 14647
- Status last verified
- May 2015
- First submitted
- 11 Nov 2013
- Last updated
- 20 May 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Lion KC, Gritton J, Scannell J, Brown JC, Ebel BE, Klein EJ, Mangione-Smith R. Patterns and Predictors of Professional Interpreter Use in the Pediatric Emergency Department. Pediatrics. 2021 Feb;147(2):e20193312. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3312.
PubMed 33468598Lion KC, Brown JC, Ebel BE, Klein EJ, Strelitz B, Gutman CK, Hencz P, Fernandez J, Mangione-Smith R. Effect of Telephone vs Video Interpretation on Parent Comprehension, Communication, and Utilization in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Dec;169(12):1117-25. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2630.
PubMed 26501862
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 May 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Impact of Remote Interpreter Modality on Comprehension, Communication Quality, and Consistency of Interpreter Use in the Pediatric Emergency Department
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01986179
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 14647
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 208 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Seattle Children's HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2014
- Primary completion
- Aug 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Aug 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 18 Nov 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Professional interpretation improves quality of care for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). However, many health care settings lack access to professional interpreters, and even in locations with good access, logistical factors and perceived barriers have limited their widespread use. Remote methods of professional interpretation, including telephone and video, hold great promise for expanding access, but only limited data exist on the relative impacts of these modalities on patient care and provider uptake. Comparing how these modalities impact multiple aspects of health care quality, including family comprehension, provider communication, and consistency of provider interpreter use will inform dissemination of strategies for delivery of safe, efficient, and equitable care to LEP families.
Aim 1: To determine whether randomly assigned remote interpreter modality (telephone versus video) impacts parent-reported quality of communication and interpretation, diagnosis comprehension, and length of stay (LOS) among LEP Spanish-speaking families seen in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED).
Hypothesis 1: Parent-reported quality of communication and interpretation and parent diagnosis comprehension will be higher among families assigned to video interpretation compared to telephone interpretation.
Hypothesis 2: LOS will not differ between families assigned to video and telephone interpretation.
Aim 2: To determine whether assigned interpreter modality is associated with provider decision to communicate without professional interpretation.
Hypothesis 3: Parent-reported provider communication without professional interpretation (e.g. using the patient or a family member to interpret for some part of the visit) will be lower for families assigned to video interpretation compared to telephone interpretation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Telephone Interpretation | Active comparator | Other: Telephone InterpretationThese families will be assigned to use telephone interpretation throughout the ED visit. |
| Video Interpretation | Experimental | Other: Video InterpretationThese families will be assigned to use video interpretation throughout the ED visit. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 1 day to 18 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Preferred language for medical care of Spanish
- At least one primary caregiver requires interpretation
- Presenting to Seattle Children's ED during recruiting hours
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Triage level 1 (life-threatening illness)
- No parent or legal guardian present
- Reason for visit is concern for abuse
- reason for visit is primary behavioral or psychiatric complaint
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Telephone InterpretationProfessional interpretation provided over the phone by a national network of certified medical interpreters | Other | Telephone Interpretation |
| Video InterpretationProfessional interpretation provided over video by a national network of certified medical interpreters | Other | Video Interpretation |
Primary outcome
Communication Quality
Time frame: Once, 1-7 days after the ED visit
We will use the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Child Visit Survey 2.0 communication composite, which includes 5 items.
Interpretation Quality
Time frame: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Interpretation quality will be measured with the Interpreter Satisfaction Survey (7 items).
Diagnosis Comprehension
Time frame: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Parents will be asked to name their child's diagnosis. Clinician-recorded diagnosis will be obtained from chart review for comparison. Responses will be classified as correct, incorrect, or vague/incomplete, using a method we have employed previously.
Consistency of Interpreter Use
Time frame: Once, 1-7 days after ED visit
Parents will be asked to report on the frequency with which providers used each of a list of potential communication methods (e.g. telephone interpreter, family or friend, spoke in English without an interpreter present). Response options are never, sometimes, frequently, or always.
1 secondary outcome
Length of ED stay
Time frame: Once, after ED visit
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 May 2015.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33468598Lion KC, Gritton J, Scannell J, Brown JC, Ebel BE, Klein EJ, Mangione-Smith R. Patterns and Predictors of Professional Interpreter Use in the Pediatric Emergency Department. Pediatrics. 2021 Feb;147(2):e20193312. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3312.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 26501862Lion KC, Brown JC, Ebel BE, Klein EJ, Strelitz B, Gutman CK, Hencz P, Fernandez J, Mangione-Smith R. Effect of Telephone vs Video Interpretation on Parent Comprehension, Communication, and Utilization in the Pediatric Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Dec;169(12):1117-25. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2630.
Related trials for Limited English Proficient Patients and Families
Active, not recruiting
The Patient and Family Centered I-PASS LISTEN Study: Language, Inclusion, Safety, and Teamwork for Equity Now
Communication
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
K. Casey Lion, MD, MPH principal investigator
Seattle Children's Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Telephone Interpretation and Video Interpretation in people with Limited English Proficient Patients and Families, run by Seattle Children's Hospital at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 May 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Communication Quality (time frame: Once, 1-7 days after the ED visit). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01986179, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 May 2015.