Current evidence highlights that language discordant clinical encounters seriously compromise patient quality of care and health outcomes. We aimed to characterise patterns of interpreter service use in medical inpatient wards use and explore clinician experience of language discordance. Participants included medical students, residents, attending physicians, nursing and allied health professionals working in General Internal Medicine wards across two tertiary referral hospitals servicing a large Australian health care area. This study involved a retrospective electronic medical record audit of interpreter use. Six focus groups were conducted with 32 participants. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Allied health professionals were identified as the largest users of interpreter services, followed by medical doctors. Distinct themes emerged regarding clinician experiences of language discordant encounters including: (1) Negotiating care when unable to get an accurate assessment; (2) Over servicing to fill in the gaps; (3) Using family members instead of professional interpreters: a vexed solution; (4) Disparities in care provision; and (5) Communication drought: broken by a flood. Patients with low English proficiency are at risk of being less informed of care processes, and having a very large volume of information given in a shorter period of time when an interpreter is present. There is a need for systematic and transformative change that addresses utilisation of professional interpreters as well as embedded healthcare culture and practices leading to less interaction with patients with limited English proficiency and reliance on family members as informal interpreters.

Culturally competent health care service delivery can improve health outcomes, increasing the efficiency of clinical staff, and greater patient satisfaction. We aimed to explore the experience of patients with limited English proficiency and professional interpreters in an acute hospital setting. In-depth interviews explored the experiences of four culturally and linguistically diverse communities with regards to their recent hospitalisation and access to interpreters. We also conducted focus group with professional interpreters working. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 patients from Greek, Chinese, Dari and Vietnamese backgrounds. Focus groups were conducted with 11 professional interpreters. Key themes emerged highlighting challenges to the delivery of health care due distress and lack of advocacy in patients. Interpreters struggled due to a reliance on family to act as interpreters and hospital staff proficiency in working with them. In an era of growing ethnic diversity this study confirms the complexity of providing a therapeutic relationships in contemporary health practice. This can be enhanced by training towards the effective use of professional interpreters in a hospital setting. Such efforts should be multidisciplinary and collective in order to ensure patients don’t fall through the gaps with regards to the provision of culturally competent care.

Background: Adaptive models of healthcare delivery, such as telehealth consultations, have rapidly been adopted to ensure ongoing delivery of essential healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there remain gaps in our understanding of how clinicians have adapted to telehealth. This study aims to explore the telehealth experiences of specialists, based at a tertiary hospital in the Hunter Region, and general practitioners (GP), including barriers, enablers and opportunities. Methods: An interpretative qualitative study involving in-depth interviews explored the telehealth experiences of specialists, based at a tertiary hospital in the Hunter Region of Australia, and GPs, including barriers, enablers and opportunities. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Results: Individual interviews were conducted with 10 specialists and five GPs. Key themes were identified: (1) transition to telehealth has been valuable but challenging; (2) persisting telehealth process barriers need to be addressed; (3) establishing when face-to-face consults are essential; (4) changes in workload pressures and potential for double-up; (5) essential modification of work practices; and (6) exploring what is needed going forward. Conclusions: While there is a need to rationalize and optimize health access during a pandemic, we suggest that more needs to be done to improve telehealth going forward. Our results have important policy implications. Specifically, there is a need to effectively train clinicians to competently utilize and be confident using this telehealth and to educate patients on necessary skills and etiquette.

Background: Health policy and management decisions rarely reflect research evidence. As part of a broader randomized controlled study exploring implementation science strategies we examined how allied health managers respond to two distinct recommendations and the evidence that supports them. Methods: A qualitative study nested in a larger randomized controlled trial. Allied health managers across Australia and New Zealand who were responsible for weekend allied health resource allocation decisions towards the provision of inpatient service to acute general medical and surgical wards, and subacute rehabilitation wards were eligible for inclusion. Consenting participants were randomized to (1) control group or (2) implementation group 1, which received an evidence-based policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, or (3) implementation group 2, which received the same policy recommendation document guiding weekend allied health resource allocation decisions with support from a knowledge broker. As part of the trial, serial focus groups were conducted with a sample of over 80 allied health managers recruited to implementation group 2 only. A total 17 health services participated in serial focus groups according to their allocated randomization wave, over a 12-month study period. The primary outcome was participant perceptions and data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach with constant comparison. Thematic saturation was achieved. Results: Five key themes emerged: (1) Local data is more influential than external evidence; (2) How good is the evidence and does it apply to us? (3) It is difficult to change things; (4) Historically that is how we have done things; and (5) What if we get complaints? Conclusions: This study explored implementation of strategies to bridge gaps in evidence-informed decision-making. Results provide insight into barriers, which prevent the implementation of evidence-based practice from fully and successfully occurring, such as attitudes towards evidence, limited skills in critical appraisal, and lack of authority to promote change. In addition, strategies are needed to manage the risk of confirmation biases in decision-making processes. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12618000029291). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1205-2621.

Implementation research is increasingly being recognised for optimising the outcomes of clinical practice. Frequently, the benefits of new evidence are not implemented due to the difficulties applying traditional research methodologies to implementation settings. Randomised controlled trials are not always practical for the implementation phase of knowledge transfer, as differences between individual and organisational readiness for change combined with small sample sizes can lead to imbalances in factors that impede or facilitate change between intervention and control groups. Within-cluster repeated measure designs could control for variance between intervention and control groups by allowing the same clusters to receive a sequence of conditions. Although in implementation settings, they can contaminate the intervention and control groups after the initial exposure to interventions. We propose the novel application of counterbalanced design to implementation research where repeated measures are employed through crossover, but contamination is averted by counterbalancing different health contexts in which to test the implementation strategy. In a counterbalanced implementation study, the implementation strategy (independent variable) has two or more levels evaluated across an equivalent number of health contexts (e.g. community-acquired pneumonia and nutrition for critically ill patients) using the same outcome (dependent variable). This design limits each cluster to one distinct strategy related to one specific context, and therefore does not overburden any cluster to more than one focussed implementation strategy for a particular outcome, and provides a ready-made control comparison, holding fixed. The different levels of the independent variable can be delivered concurrently because each level uses a different health context within each cluster to avoid the effect of treatment contamination from exposure to the intervention or control condition. An example application of the counterbalanced implementation design is presented in a hypothetical study to demonstrate the comparison of ‘video-based’ and ‘written-based’ evidence summary research implementation strategies for changing clinical practice in community-acquired pneumonia and nutrition in critically ill patient health contexts. A counterbalanced implementation study design provides a promising model for concurrently investigating the success of research implementation strategies across multiple health context areas such as community-acquired pneumonia and nutrition for critically ill patients.