Table 4.
Odds of Reporting Higher Quality of Interpreted Medical Visits, Alameda County Medical Center, 2004–2005
| Clinician-reported Quality of Visit | Interpretation Mode1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-Person vs. Video conferencing | In-Person vs. Ad hoc | Video conferencing vs. Ad hoc | Professional (in-person + video conferencing) vs. Ad hoc | |
| Odds Ratio2 (95% CI) | Odds Ratio2 (95% CI) | Odds Ratio2 (95% CI) | Odds Ratio2 (95% CI) | |
| Higher quality (good/very good/excellent) interpretation | 1.79 (0.74, 4.33) | 5.55* (1.50, 20.51) | 3.10** (1.16, 8.31) | 4.15* (1.43, 12.09) |
| Higher quality (good/very good/excellent) communication | 2.25 (0.97, 5.25) | 2.59 (0.73, 9.22) | 1.15 (0.29, 4.57) | 1.72 (0.49, 6.06) |
| More clinician visit satisfaction (somewhat/very/extremely satisfied) | 0.39 (0.15, 1.07) | 0.37 (0.08,1.66) | 0.95 (0.26, 3.43) | 0.60 (0.16, 2.19) |
| Better understanding (fairly well/well/very well) of the patient’s cultural beliefs | 2.32** (1.11, 4.86) | 1.16 (0.45, 3.03) | 0.50 (0.22, 1.16) | 0.76 (0.33, 1.74) |
1
Both in-person and video conferencing interpretation were provided by trained medical interpreters; ad-hoc consisted of family, friends, nurses, and clinic staff not trained as medical interpreters.
2
All odds ratios were adjusted for clinic site, patient’s language, patient’s gender, patient’s health status, patient’s emotional distress, number of times clinician has seen patient, clinician’s age, clinician’s gender, and clinician clustering.
*
p-value <.01;
**
p-value <.05