Language Assistance Services in Nonfederally Funded Safety-Net Medical Clinics in the United States

Abstract

Background: In the United States, nonfederally funded safety-net clinics provide health care services to underserved populations, including patients with limited English proficiency. Unlike clinics that receive federal funding, which requires provision of qualified interpreters, these clinics are not required to provide such services. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the types of language assistance services used by safety-net clinics and their approaches to medical interpreter training for volunteers and staff. Methods: A survey was administered by mail and email to nonfederally funded medical safety-net clinics identified from publicly available directories. The survey collected information on clinic characteristics, interpreter modalities used, and interpreter training and could be completed on paper or online. Results: Among 859 eligible clinics, 216 completed the survey (24% response rate). Few clinics reported timely access to professional interpreter services in-person (18.5%), by phone (23%), or by video (7%), while 80% of clinics used ad hoc family member or friend to interpret and 53% used ad hoc child to interpreter. Seventy-eight percent of clinics reported using bilingual staff, providers, and/or volunteers. Staff/volunteer training was provided by 22 clinics (11%). Conclusion: Most safety-net clinics relied upon ad hoc interpreters, contrary to best practices. Use of ad hoc interpreters can lead to errors in interpretation, contributing to inequities in quality of health care services. Future efforts should identify economical strategies to improve access to qualified interpreter services at nonfederally funded safety-net clinics.

Moving Toward Inclusion: Access to Care Models for Uninsured Immigrant Children

“…Considering language access as an example, programs that receive federal funds are required to provide language access, and states have the option to claim Medicaid reimbursement for the cost of interpretation services, 114 so access to this fundamental service often depends on where people are able to obtain care. Specifically, there is significant variation in the use of interpreting services in particular geographic areas, across different specialties, and within certain clinical contexts (e.g., emergency services, non–federally funded safety net emergent medical clinics), with nonprofessionals often interpreting during emergencies in the field and in settings where trained medical interpreters are not required by law 115,116 . As more states expand state‐sponsored Medicaid coverage to children regardless of immigration status, 15,16 research that investigates reimbursement for medical interpretation may intersect with the impact of expanded coverage on health care use, patient outcomes, and state finances.…”

Perspectives from leadership and frontline staff on telehealth transitions in the Los Angeles safety net during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

“…Participants discussed that there was almost an assumption made by leadership that frontline safety net staff interfacing the most with patients would be comfortable using these new telehealth tools. Future implementation will have to focus on the technology needs and understanding of the workforce, and staff telehealth training and empowerment for those at the front lines of the health technology implementation in the safety net ( 76 ). Also, much of the discussion at the clinic and provider level revolved around the extra use of resources to identify high quality clinical scenarios and appropriately identifying what support patients needed to use the video visit service, to meet these unmet digital needs ( 52 , 77 – 79 ).…”

When life imitates data: Failing patients with language barriers

“…Not‐for‐profit private hospitals are substantially more likely to offer language services (70.2%) than private for‐profit hospitals (18.6%) 7 . A lack of access to resources may contribute in some settings as well, with a study of 216 non‐federally funded safety‐net clinics in the United States finding the vast majority reporting limited access to in‐person, phone, or video interpreter services 8 . Re‐allocation of resources both within and across institutions to invest in these services will allow individual providers access to them when they are inevitably needed.…”