Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of interpretation method on outpatient visit length.

DESIGN: Time-motion study.

SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient teaching clinic.

PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting for scheduled outpatient visits.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Over a 6-week study period, a research assistant recorded the following information for consecutive patient visits: patient age, gender and insurance type; type of interpreter used (none, hospital interpreter, telephone interpreter or patient-supplied interpreter); scheduled visit length; provider type (nurse practitioner; attending physician; resident in postgraduate year 1, 2 or 3, or medical student); provider gender; amount of time the patient spent in the examination room with the provider (provider time); and total time the patient spent in the clinic from check-in to checkout (clinic time). When compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using some form of interpreter had longer mean provider times (32.4 minutes [min] vs 28.0 min, P<.001) and clinic times (93.6 min vs 82.4 min, P=.002). Compared to patients not requiring an interpreter, patients using a telephone interpreter had significantly longer mean provider times (36.3 min vs 28.0 min, P < .001) and clinic times (99.9 min vs 82.4 min, P=.02). Similarly, patients using a patient-supplied interpreter had longer mean provider times (34.4 min vs 28.0 min, P<.001) and mean clinic times (92.8 min vs 82.4 min, P=.027). In contrast, patients using a hospital interpreter did not have significantly different mean provider times (26.8 min vs 28.0 min, P=.51) or mean clinic times (91.0 min vs 82.4 min, P=.16) than patients not requiring an interpreter.

CONCLUSION: In our setting, telephone and patient-supplied interpreters were associated with longer visit times, but full-time hospital interpreters were not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau Web site. Available at: http://www.census.gov. Accessed April 8, 2002.

  2. Office for Civil Rights. Policy guidance: Title VI prohibition against national origin discrimination with limited English proficiency. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/lep/guide.html. Accessed October 17, 2002.

  3. Baker DW, Hayes R, Fortier JP. Interpreter use and satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care for Spanish-speaking patients. Med Care. 1998;36:1461–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Carrasquillo O, Orav J, Brennan TA, Burstin HR. Impact of language barriers on patient satisfaction in an emergency department. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:82–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Morales LS, Cunningham WE, Brown JA, Liu H, Hays RD. Are Latinos less satisfied with communication by health care providers? J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:409–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee LL, Batal HA, Maselli JH, Kutner JS. Effect of Spanish interpretation method on patient satisfaction in an urban walk-in clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:641–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Coates WC, Pitkin K. Use and effectiveness of interpreters in an emergency department. JAMA. 1996;275:783–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Woloshin S, Bickel NA, Schwartz LM, Gany F, Welch HG. Language barriers in medicine in the United States. JAMA. 1995;273:724–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Perkins J. Overcoming language barriers to health care. Pop Gov. 1999;65:38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Riddick S. Improving access for limited English-speaking consumers: a review of strategies in health care settings. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9:S40-S61.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chang PH, Fortier JP. Language barriers to health care: an overview. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9:S5-S20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tocher TM, Larson EB. Do physicians spend more time with non-English-speaking patients? J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:303–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kravitz RL, Helms J, Azari R, Antonius D, Melnikow J. Comparing the use of physician time and health care resources among patients speaking English, Spanish, and Russian. Med Care. 2000;38:728–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuo D, Fagan MJ. Satisfaction with methods of Spanish interpretation in an ambulatory care clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:547–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dugdale DC, Epstein R, Pantilat SZ. Time and the patientphysician relationship. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:S34-S40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark J. Fagan MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fagan, M.J., Diaz, J.A., Reinert, S.E. et al. Impact of interpretation method on clinic visit length. J GEN INTERN MED 18, 634–638 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20701.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20701.x

Key Words

Navigation