Residents tell Healthwatch that the quality of interpreting in primary care can be good, but it depends on who you get

Interpreting services for primary care in North Central London are being recommissioned. That's why, with support from other local Healthwatch, we've been speaking to residents about their experiences with the current services. We gathered detailed feedback from 54 people using spoken language support and six Deaf residents. We also heard from community organisations that support users of interpreting services.

What's good about the current services?

People told us they appreciated being helped and enabled to make themselves understood. Some said they were grateful to be relieved of the anxiety or frustration of struggling to communicate. Others were pleased to overcome barriers caused by not understanding medical terminology. Positive feedback on the quality of the interpreters centred on their ability and listening skills such as patience and empathy. 

What could be improved?

Some people were happy with the service and said there was nothing to improve, but most respondents made suggestions:

• Perhaps the biggest issue was with the quality of interpreting. It was felt that there needed to be regular testing of interpreters to ensure their quality. 

"I think some of the interpreters lack care and patience and could be more appropriate in their dealings with people. I sometimes felt rushed or that the interpreter was not always accurately relaying information because I would be cut off from explaining. There were times when I did not feel heard."

Somali speaking resident

• There is also a need to ensure that there are speakers of appropriate dialects. This was mentioned by speakers of Turkish, Somali, and Arabic.
• Another issue is the length of appointments when interpreting is provided. People reported feeling rushed or complained that the interpreters lacked patience. Some felt that interpreted appointments should be longer.
• Respondents felt that interpreting should be offered for conversations with reception staff as well, particularly because phone-based triaging is becoming more important
•  Some said they wanted interpreting to be offered on more days (some practices have set days for interpreting support in certain languages). Others suggested that interpreters be present in GP centres at all times, especially those speaking the languages most widely spoken in the local community. 
• Where only telephone-based interpreting was available, some people said that face-to-face interpreting would be an improvement. Generally speaking, where a preference was expressed, face-to-face interpreting was preferred. 
• The ability to request a female interpreter was also identified as a potential improvement.

Emma Whitby, Chief Executive of Healthwatch Islington, said "Many of the people we spoke to complained of a lack of consistency in the quality of the interpreting offered. This can lead to poorer health outcomes for service users already experiencing health inequalities. It's important that the quality of interpreting is effectively monitored. Service users and the community-based organisations that support them should play a key role in this process, and their involvement needs to be appropriately resourced."