Here are five key points:
1. Researchers’ analysis centered on the differences in error rates for visits with professional interpreters either in person or via video conference, versus with untrained interpreters. The error rate was 54 percent for untrained interpreters.
2. Nearly 7 percent of the errors in the study were significant errors such as an incorrect drug dosage or an inaccurate description of a patient’s symptoms.
3. With trained in-person interpreters, the odds of a clinically significant error were 75 percent lower than with an untrained interpreter.
4. Those hospitals and clinics receiving federal funds are mandated to provide interpretation services either by professional interpreters or bilingual staff.
5. The demand for professional interpretation services surpasses the availability and experts predict the gap is likely to grow wider in the future.
More healthcare news:
SCA revenue reaches $253M, Tenet joint ventures with Baptist Health System & more — 14 key notes on ASC companies
AMN Healthcare’s Susan Salka honored by Staffing Industry Analysts: 4 notes
Cyberattacks to cost health systems $305B for over 5 years: 5 key notes
