Four respondents provided no information about their professional status. All 11 medical departments were represented in the final sample. No data are available on non-respondents. French was the mother tongue of 81 respondents (82%); 18 spoke a non-French mother tongue. Many of them spoke other languages fluently: 70 spoke English DAPT price fluently, 29 German, 27 Spanish, 21 Italian, 4 Portuguese, 3 Arabic, and 2 Serbo-Croatian. Forty-four respondents (44%) had previously provided medical interpretation.

The mean estimated percentage of non-Swiss patients was 27% but varied widely (SD 23.8). The mean estimated percentage of LFP was 15% (SD 13.4). Thirty-one respondents (31%) said that they were aware of the existence of written guidelines regarding the use of interpreter services. The majority of respondents reported using interpreters (either professional or ad hoc) only a few times a year (66%). Eighteen percent said that they used interpreters about once a month

and 10% reported never using an interpreter. The strategies used most frequently to overcome language barriers varied according to the language in question (Table 2). selleckchem For Portuguese and Spanish, over half of the respondents used bilingual employees most often, while only 5% to 6% used professional interpreters most often. In contrast, over a third of the respondents used professional interpreters most often for Tamil, Albanian, Bosnian Serbian, and Croatian. Between 2 and 18% of respondents used untrained volunteer interpreters most often. At least a quarter

of the respondents relied on patients’ relatives and friends to interpret for all but Portuguese and Spanish. Respondents were asked to rate the quality of interpreting provided by the different types of interpreters (Table 3). Seventy-three percent thought that professional interpreters provided good (32%) or excellent interpreting (41%), while 64% thought that hospital employees provided good (60%) or excellent interpreting (3%). The quality of patients’ relatives and friends’ interpreting was rated lower: 13% thought their interpreting was poor and only 27% thought family members provided good to excellent interpreting. Nonetheless, 57% said patient relatives’ interpreting was “satisfactory.” The quality of volunteer interpreters’ interpreting was rated as satisfactory click here by 6% of respondents, good by 37%, and excellent by 7%. These data should be considered with some caution, however, because respondents had relatively low frequency of contact with interpreters. Also, we have no information on the complexity of the exchanges in which respondents used interpreters, which can influence interpreter quality. Despite the relatively infrequent use of professional interpreters, respondents had a positive attitude regarding the impact of these interpreters on healthcare quality and on immigrants’ social integration.