Caregivers with limited language proficiency and their satisfaction with paediatric emergency care related to the use of professional interpreters: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Communication is a main challenge in migrant health and essential for patient safety. The aim of this study was to describe the satisfaction of caregivers with limited language proficiency (LLP) with care related to the use of interpreters and to explore underlying and interacting factors influencing satisfaction and self-advocacy. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study. SETTING: Paediatric emergency department (PED) at a tertiary care hospital in Bern, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Caregivers visiting the PED were systematically screened for their language proficiency. Semistructured interviews were conducted with all LLP-caregivers agreeing to participate and their administrative data were extracted. RESULTS: The study included 181 caregivers, 14 of whom received professional language interpretation. Caregivers who were assisted by professional interpretation services were more satisfied than those without (5.5 (SD)±1.4 vs 4.8 (SD)±1.6). Satisfaction was influenced by five main factors (relationship with health workers, patient management, alignment of health concepts, personal expectations, health outcome of the patient) which were modulated by communication. Of all LLP-caregivers without professional interpretation, 44.9% were satisfied with communication due to low expectations regarding the quality of communication, unawareness of the availability of professional interpretation and overestimation of own language skills, resulting in low self-advocacy. CONCLUSION: The use of professional interpreters had a positive impact on the overall satisfaction of LLP-caregivers with emergency care. LLP-caregivers were not well-positioned to advocate for language interpretation. Healthcare providers must be aware of their responsibility to guarantee good-quality communication to ensure equitable quality of care and patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".