Interpretation and Translation Services

Consultation findings

The consultation has now ended. Thank you to all those who took part. The full consultation report is now available at the bottom of this page detailing the findings. There is also an easy read version and BSL video available to watch.

Watch the BSL video

What people told us

The people we met with had very different needs but for most of those who accessed interpretation and translation services for community languages, they were very thankful to be able to do so. They described the difficulties they experience in everyday life and how grateful they were for the additional support at primary care appointments as health is such an important topic. A large number of Deaf people shared how needing an interpreter for medical appointments caused a great deal of stress and anxiety. The biggest cause of this stress and anxiety is whether an interpreter will be there or not. People’s experiences of interpretation and translation services were varied and inequitable, but the problems people experienced often related to processes or systems.

Key findings

Most participants regularly used interpreters, especially for GP and hospital appointments but access is inconsistent – some always get one, others face delays, refusals, or cancellations. There was also evidence that, depending on where you live in Greater Manchester, your experience may be different. 

Family members are often used to interpret due to a lack, or perceived lack, of professional support. This raises privacy and accuracy concerns.

People told us they had experienced booking and system barriers. They reported some GPs proactively asking about interpretation needs, with others leaving it to patients to make requests for assistance. Many told us they felt that their interpretation or translation needs are often not recorded in their patient records, resulting in repeated requests.

There was general satisfaction expressed with interpreters, but issues were often raised about dialect mismatches, most commonly in the various south Asian and African dialects.

Interpretation is more than just words. It was felt by some people that cultural sensitivity is often lacking. The need for interpreters to have a basic training of medical terminology or knowledge was discussed at a number of focus groups as the impact of some interpreters paraphrasing or misrepresenting symptoms, could affect diagnosis and care.

When asking people if they preferred interpretation to be face-to-face, over the phone or over video, this was entirely down to their personal preferences. There seemed to be a lack of choice in the format and people told us this was generally decided by the provider (based on availability), not by the patient. There was support for including this element of choice in the booking. 

Letters and health leaflets are almost always in English, and most people told us they make use of family or translation apps (e.g. Google Translate) to understand them. The majority of people we engaged with were unaware they could request translated materials. 

The majority of people we spoke with were confident at using online apps or websites to translate written information for them. The VCFSE organisations also use them to communicate with or support their clients. A suggestion was made about utilising translation technology more within healthcare, due to a lack of staff or interpreters to hand, for places like A&E. 

The report explores the key themes in more detail.

Key points for commissioners to consider

Based on this engagement the following key considerations should be considered:

• The development of communications campaigns around the availability of interpretation and translation services in NHS primary care
• The development of communications around the need for a neutral interpreter to safeguard patients
• The acknowledgement of gaps in interpretation services awareness in dentistry and optometry. The wider need for more dentist places could have an influence on this
• When surgery appointments are running late, patients using the services of a communication professional should be seen as near to their timeslot as possible due to the time constraints of their communication support
• The introduction of simple language and plain English in written communications, including putting important information in bullet points (where, date, time, who), whether their interpreter is booked and perhaps the name of the interpreter
• The training need across primary care around d/Deaf awareness, how to best communicate through Interpreters and cultural sensitivities as examples
• Ensure that interpreters/translators have training or knowledge on basic medical language and terminology to support the appointments
• That the Accessible Information Standard is being followed by primary care services
• For virtual interpretation to be of value, Wi-Fi connections need to be sufficiently strong, and the size of the screen needs to be large enough that the patient can clearly understand
• Improving patient choice around the method of interpretation (virtual or face to face) and which language or dialect
• Systems should have the flexibility to ensure that Deaf patients receive the communication they need to have an equitable service to hearing people.
• The use of virtual or face to face interpretation should be the choice of the Deaf patient unless it is an emergency appointment.
• The inability to find and book a BSL interpreter should be declared in advance of any appointment. This would give the opportunity to agree whether the appointment is rearranged, or a virtual interpreter is booked instead.