“They’re Not Willing To Accommodate Deaf patients”: Communication Experiences of Deaf American Sign Language Users in the Emergency Department

Abstract

Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) are more likely to use the emergency department (ED) than their hearing English-speaking counterparts and are also at higher risk of receiving inaccessible communication. The purpose of this study is to explore the ED communication experience of Deaf patients. A descriptive qualitative study was performed by interviewing 11 Deaf people who had used the ED in the past 2 years. Applying a descriptive thematic analysis, we developed five themes: (1) requesting communication access can be stressful, frustrating, and time-consuming; (2) perspectives and experiences with Video Remote Interpreting (VRI); (3) expectations, benefits, and drawbacks of using on-site ASL interpreters; (4) written and oral communication provides insufficient information to Deaf patients; and (5) ED staff and providers lack cultural sensitivity and awareness towards Deaf patients. Findings are discussed with respect to medical and interpreting ethics to improve ED communication for Deaf patients.

Keywords

deaf patient-provider communication American Sign Language emergency department Video Remote Interpreting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agrawal

Platz

E. A.

Niparko

J. K.

(2008). Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among us adultsdata from the national health and nutrition examination survey, 1999-2004. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168(14), 1522–1530. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.14.1522

Alexander

Ladd

Powell

(2012). Deafness might damage your health. The Lancet, 379(9820), 979–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61670-X

Anderson

M. L.

Riker

Gagne

Hakulin

Higgins

Meehan

Stout

Pici-D’Ottavio

Cappetta

Wolf Craig

K. S.

(2018). Deaf qualitative health research: Leveraging technology to conduct linguistically and sociopolotically appropriate methods of inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 28(11), 1813–1824. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318779050

Anglemyer

Crespi

(20182018). Misinterpretation of psychiatric illness in deaf patients: Two case reports. Case Reports in Psychiatry, 2018, 3285153. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3285153

Barnett

S. L.

Matthews

K. A.

Sutter

E. J.

DeWindt

L. A.

Pransky

J. A.

O’Hearn

A. M.

David

T. M.

Pollard

R. Q.

Jr. Samar

V. J.

Pearson

T. A.

(2017). Collaboration with Deaf communities to conduct accessible health surveillance. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(3), S250–S254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.011.

Bartlett

Blais

Tamblyn

Clermont

R. J.

MacGibbon

(2008). Impact of patient communication problems on the risk of preventable adverse events in acute care settings. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 178(12), 1555–1562. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070690.

Bauman

H.-D. L.

(2004). Audism: Exploring the metaphysics of oppression. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(2), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enh025.

Betancourt

J. R.

Renfrew

M. R.

Green

A. R.

López

Wasserman

(2012). Improving patient safety systems for patients with limited English proficiency: A guide for hospitals. AHRQ Publication No. . 12-0041). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/lepguide.pdf.

Birt

Scott

Cavers

Campbell

Walter

(2016). Member checking. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

10.

Bradshaw

Atkinson

Doody

(2017). Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617742282.

11.

Bragg

(Ed), (2001). Deaf World. New York University Press.

12.

Huffman

(2017). Univ. Med. Ctr. Mgmt. Corp. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ).

13.

Iezzoni

L. I.

O’Day

B. L.

Killeen

Harker

(2004). Communicating about health care: Observations from persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. Annals of Internal Medicine, 140(5), 356–362. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-5-200403020-00011

14.

James

T. G.

McKee

M. M.

Sullivan

M. K.

Ashton

Hardy

S. J.

Santiago

Phillips

D. G.

Cheong

(20211974). Community-engaged needs assessment of deaf American Sign Language users in Florida, 2018. Advance online publication. Public Health Reports. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549211026782

15.

Johns Hopkins University & Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality (2014). Improving the emergency department discharge process: Environmental scan report (Publication No. 14(15)-0067-EF). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/systems/hospital/edenvironmentalscan/index.html

16.

Karliner

L. S.

Jacobs

E. A.

Chen

A. H.

Mutha

(2007). Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(2), 727–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x

17.

Kritzinger

Schneider

Swartz

Braathen

S. H.

(2014). “I just answer ‘yes’ to everything they say”: Access to health care for deaf people in Worcester, South Africa and the politics of exclusion. Patient Education and Counseling, 94(3), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.12.006

18.

Kushalnagar

Paludneviciene

Kushalnagar

(2019). Video remote interpreting technology in health care: Cross-sectional study of deaf patients’ experiences. JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies, 6(1), e13233. https://doi.org/10.2196/13233

19.

Luan Erfe

Siddiqui

Schwamm

Kirwan

Nunes

Mejia

(2017). Professional medical interpreters influence the quality of acute ischemic stroke care for patients who speak languages other than English. Journal of the American Heart Association, 6(9), e006175. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006175

20.

Malterud

Siersma

V. D.

Guassora

A. D.

(2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

21.

Mauldin

(2016). Made to hear: Cochlear implants and raising deaf children. Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=4392072

22.

McKee

M. M.

Barnett

S. L.

Block

R. C.

Pearson

T. A.

(2011). Impact of communication on preventive services among deaf American sign language users. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41(1), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.03.004

23.

McKee

M. M.

Lin

F. R.

Zazove

(2018). State of research and program development for adults with hearing loss. Disability and Health Journal, 11(4), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.07.010

24.

McKee

Paasche-Orlow

Winters

Fiscella

Zazove

Sen

Pearson

(2015a). Assessing health literacy in Deaf American sign language users. Journal of Health Communication, 20 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1066468

25.

McKee

M. M.

Winters

P. C.

Sen

Zazove

Fiscella

(2015b). Emergency department utilization among deaf American sign language users. Disability and Health Journal, 8(4), 573–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2015.05.004

26.

McKee

Moreland

Atcherson

Zazove

(2015c). Hearing loss: Communicating with the patient who is deaf or hard of hearing. FP Essentials, 434, 24–28.

27.

Mertens

D. M.

(2007). Transformative considerations. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 86–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214006298058

28.

Mertens

D. M.

(2009). Transformative research and evaluation. The Guilford Press.

29.

Mertens

D. M.

(2013). What does a transformative lens bring to credible evidence in mixed methods evaluations? New Directions for Evaluation, 2013(138), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20055

30.

Myers

M. J.

Annis

I. E.

Withers

Williamson

Thomas

K. C.

(2021) Access to effective communication aids and services among American Sign Language users across North Carolina: Disparities and strategies to address them. Journal of Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1878594

31.

National Association of the Deaf & Deaf Seniors of America (2018). NAD-deaf Seniors of America (DSA) Position statement on minimum standards for video Remote interpreting services in medical settings. https://www.nad.org/about-us/position-statements/minimum-standards-for-video-remote-interpreting-services-in-medical-settings/

32.

National Association of the Deaf & Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (2005). NAD-RID code of professional conduct. Registry of interpreters for the deaf. https://rid.org/ethics/code-of-professional-conduct/

33.

National Council on Interpreting in Healthcare (2005). National standards of ppractice for interpreters in health care. National Council on Interpreting in Health Care https://www.ncihc.org/assets/documents/publications/NCIHC%20National%20Standards%20of%20Practice.pdf

34.

Northeastern University Regional Interpreter Education Center & National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (2007). Mental healthcare and substance use interpreting domains and competencies. CATIE Center & NCIEC. https://healthcareinterpreting.org/mental-health-domains-competencies/

35.

Sandelowski

(2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G

36.

Sandelowski

(2010). What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362

37.

Schniedewind

Lindsay

Snow

(2020100932). Ask and ye shall not receive: Interpreter-related access barriers reported by Deaf users of American Sign Language. Disability and Health Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.100932

38.

Schwartz

(2006). Communication in the doctor’s office: Deaf patients talk about their physicians [Dissertation]. Syracuse University. https://surface.syr.edu/cfe_etd/7

39.

Sheppard

(2013). Deaf adults and health care: Giving voice to their stories. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 26(9), 504–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12087

40.

Silva

(2017). Baptist Health South Florida. Inc. (Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit ).

41.

St. Catherine University CATIE Center & National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers (2008). ASL/English medical interpreter domains and competencies. CATIE Center & NCIEC. http://www.interpretereducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/DomainsCompetencies10-09-08.pdf

42.

Steinberg

A. G.

Barnett

Meador

H. E.

Wiggins

E. A.

Zazove

(2006). Health care system accessibility. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(3), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00340.x

43.

Sunderland

(2016). Bethesda Health, Inc.United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

44.

Taira

B. R.

Orue

(2019). Language assistance for limited English proficiency patients in a public ED: Determining the unmet need. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 56.

45.

The Joint Commission (2010). Advancing effective communication, cultural competence, and patient- and family-centered care: A roadmap for hospitals. The Joint Commission.

46.

U.S. Department of Justice (2014). Effective communication. Disability rights section. Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm

47.

Weiss

B. D.

Mays

M. Z.

Martz

Castro

K. M.

DeWalt

D. A.

Pignone

M. P.

Mockbee

Hale

F. A.

(2005). Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: The Newest vital sign. The Annals of Family Medicine, 3(6), 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.405

48.

Yabe

(2019100870). Healthcare providers’ and deaf patients’ interpreting preferences for critical care and non-critical care: Video remote interpreting. Disability and Health Journal, 13(2), 100870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100870

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB