Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 765–772 | Cite as

Communication barriers in counselling foreign-language patients in public pharmacies: threats to patient safety?

  • David L. B. SchwappachEmail author
  • Carla Meyer Massetti
  • Katrin Gehring
Research Article

Abstract

Background Foreign-language (FL) patients are at increased risk for adverse drug events. Evidence regarding communication barriers and the safety of pharmaceutical care of FL patients in European countries is scarce despite large migrant populations. Objective To investigate Swiss public pharmacists’ experiences and current practices in counselling FL patients with a focus on patient safety. Method In a cross-sectional study heads of public pharmacies in Switzerland were surveyed using an electronic questionnaire. Main outcome measure The survey assessed the frequency of communication barriers encountered in medication counselling of FL patients, perceptions of risks for adverse drug events, satisfaction with the quality of counselling provided to FL patients, current strategies to reduce risks, and preferences towards tools to improve safety for FL patients. Results 498 pharmacists completed the survey (43 % response rate). More than every second pharmacist reported at least weekly encounters at which they cannot provide good medication counselling to FL patients in the regional Swiss language. Ad-hoc interpreting by minors is also common at a considerable number of pharmacies (26.5 % reported at least one weekly occurrence). Approximately 10 % of pharmacies reported that they fail at least weekly to explain the essentials of drug therapy (e.g. dosing of children’s medications) to FL patients. 79.8 % perceived the risk of FL patients for adverse drug events to be somewhat or much higher compared to other patients. 22.5 % of pharmacists reported being concerned at least monthly about medication safety when FL patients leave their pharmacy. However, the majority of pharmacists were satisfied with the quality of care provided to FL patients in their pharmacy [78.6 % (very) satisfied]. The main strategy used to improve counselling for FL patients was the employment of multilingual staff. Participants would use software for printing foreign-language labels (41.2 %) and multilingual package inserts (42.0 %) if these were available. Conclusion Communication barriers with FL patients are frequent in Swiss pharmacies and pharmacists perceive FL patients to be at increased risk for adverse drug events. Development and dissemination of communication tools are needed to support pharmacists in counselling of a diverse migrant population.

Keywords

Counselling Migrant health Patient Safety Public pharmacies Switzerland 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all pharmacists who participated in the study and completed the survey. Advice by several experts on prior versions of the survey is highly appreciated. Support by pharmaSuisse is acknowledged.

Funding

This work was supported by the Swiss Pharmacists Association (pharmaSuisse). The funding source had no influence on study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The views expressed and any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartlett G, Blais R, Tamblyn R, Clermont RJ, MacGibbon B. Impact of patient communication problems on the risk of preventable adverse events in acute care settings. CMAJ. 2008;178:1555–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnstone MJ, Kanitsaki O. Engaging patients as safety partners: some considerations for ensuring a culturally and linguistically appropriate approach. Health Policy. 2008;90:1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnstone MJ, Kanitsaki O. Culture, language, and patient safety: making the link. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18:383–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lokker N, Sanders L, Perrin EM, Kumar D, Finkle J, Franco V, et al. Parental misinterpretations of over-the-counter pediatric cough and cold medication labels. Pediatrics. 2009;123:1464–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rommel A, Weilandt C, Eckert J. Gesundheitsmonitoring der schweizerischen Migrationsbevölkerung. Endbericht an das Bundesamt für Gesundheit, Sektion Chancengleichheit und Gesundheit, Fachbereich Migration, und Gesundheit und das Bundesamt für Migration. Bonn: WIAD. Wissenschaftliches Institut der Ärzte Deutschlands; 2006. Available at: http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/gesundheitspolitik/07685/12533/12535/index.html. Accessed 21 May 2012.
  6. 6.
    Cohen AL, Rivara F, Marcuse EK, McPhillips H, Davis R. Are language barriers associated with serious medical events in hospitalized pediatric patients? Pediatrics. 2005;116:575–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bradshaw M, Tomany-Korman S, Flores G. Language barriers to prescriptions for patients with limited english proficiency: a survey of pharmacies. Pediatrics. 2007;120:e225–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiss L, Gany F, Rosenfeld P, Carrasquillo O, Sharif I, Behar E, et al. Access to multilingual medication instructions at New York City pharmacies. J Urban Health. 2007;84:742–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bailey SC, Pandit AU, Curtis L, Wolf MS. Availability of Spanish prescription labels: a multi-state pharmacy survey. Med Care. 2009;47:707–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flores G, Ngui E. Racial/ethnic disparities and patient safety. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2006;53:1197–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FIP/WHO. Good pharmacy practice. Joint FIP/WHO guidelines on GPP: Standards for quality of pharmacy services. The Hague: International Pharmaceutical Federation; 2011. Available at: http://www.fip.org/files/fip/WHO/GPP%20guidelines%20FIP%20publication_final.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2012.
  12. 12.
    OECD/WHO. OECD reviews of health systems: Switzerland 2011. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2011. ISBN:978-92-64-12090-7.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guggisberg J, Gardiol L, Graf I, Oesch T, Künzi K, Volken T, et al. Zweites Gesundheitsmonitoring der Migrationsbevölkerung (GMM II) in der Schweiz—Schlussbericht. Bern: Bundesamt für Gesundheit; 2011. Available at: http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/gesundheitspolitik/07685/12533/12535/index.html. Accessed 21 May 2012.
  14. 14.
    Bischoff A, Tonnerre C, Eytan A, Bernstein M, Loutan L. Addressing language barriers to health care, a survey of medical services in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed. 1999;44:248–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kocher G, Oggier W. Gesundheitswesen Schweiz 2010-2012. Eine aktuelle Übersicht. 4 ed. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber; 2010. ISBN:978-3456848037.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pfluger T, Biedermann A, Salis Gross C. Transkulturelle Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung in der Schweiz. Grundlagen und Empfehlungen. Schlussbericht an den Schweizerischen Tabakpräventionsfonds. Bern: Public Health Services; 2009. Available at: www.zora.uzh.ch/28145/2/28145.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2012.
  17. 17.
    Stuker R, Salis Gross C, Schnoz D, Kayser A. Umfrage bei ausgewählten ExponentInnen der Migrationsbevölkerung und Fachpersonen mit Migrationshintergrund zu den Bereichen Tabak und Alkohol. Bern: Schweizerisches Rotes Kreuz; 2008. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-12208. Accessed 21 May 2012.
  18. 18.
    Moret J, Dahinden J. Vers une meilleure communication. Coopération avec les réseaux de migrants. Bern: Commission fédérale pour les questions de migration CFM; 2009. Available at: http://edudoc.ch/record/35409?ln=de. Accessed 21 May 2012.
  19. 19.
    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 2011. ISBN:978-1-59718-098-6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hudelson P, Vilpert S. Overcoming language barriers with foreign-language speaking patients: a survey to investigate intra-hospital variation in attitudes and practices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elderkin-Thompson V, Cohen Silver R, Waitzkin H. When nurses double as interpreters: a study of Spanish-speaking patients in a US primary care setting. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:1343–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schenker Y, Perez-Stable EJ, Nickleach D, Karliner L. Patterns of interpreter use for hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:712–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Giordano S. Overview of the advantages and disadvantages of professional and child interpreters for limited English proficiency patients in general health care situations. J Radiol Nurs. 2007;26:126–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenberg E, Seller R, Leanza Y. Through interpreters’ eyes: comparing roles of professional and family interpreters. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70:87–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited english proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42:727–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bagchi AD, Dale S, Verbitsky-Savitz N, Andrecheck S, Zavotsky K, Eisenstein R. Examining effectiveness of medical interpreters in emergency departments for Spanish-speaking patients with limited English proficiency: results of a randomized controlled trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:248–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flores G, Abreu M, Barone CP, Bachur R, Lin H. Errors of medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences: a comparison of professional versus ad hoc versus no interpreters. Ann Emerg Med. 2012; ePub ahead of print. doi:  10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.025.
  28. 28.
    Burbano O’Leary SC, Federico S, Hampers LC. The truth about language barriers: one residency program’s experience. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e569–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phillips CB, Travaglia J. Low levels of uptake of free interpreters by Australian doctors in private practice: secondary analysis of national data. Aust Health Rev. 2011;35:475–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tuot DS, Lopez M, Miller C, Karliner LS. Impact of an easy-access telephonic interpreter program in the acute care setting: an evaluation of a quality improvement intervention. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38:81–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Emmerton LM, Mampallil L, Kairuz T, McKauge LM, Bush RA. Exploring health literacy competencies in community pharmacy. Health Expect. 2012;15:12–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. B. Schwappach
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Carla Meyer Massetti
    • 1
  • Katrin Gehring
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Patient Safety FoundationZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM)University of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations