Working With Spoken Language Interpreters: Strengthening Clinician-Interpreter Collaboration for Accessible Hearing Care

OBJECTIVES: To explore factors influencing clinician-interpreter collaboration in hearing health care for culturally and linguistically diverse communities with limited English proficiency. DESIGN: A concurrent multilevel mixed-methods approach was used to examine collaboration between clinicians (audiologists/audiometrists) and spoken language interpreters. Data collection involved online surveys and qualitative interviews. The study surveyed 241 participants across Australia, including 83 clinicians (mean age = 37.6 years, 87.8% female) and 158 interpreters (mean age = 51.0 years, 69.0% female). In addition, 33 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 clinicians and 15 interpreters. The Interprofessional Collaborative Practice framework guided qualitative analysis, while descriptive statistics and chi-square (χ2) tests assessed relationships between key variables and collaboration experiences. RESULTS: During hearing appointments, interpreters reported difficulties with specialized audiology terminology (14.9% of interpreters) and patient comprehension (20.1% of interpreters). Face-to-face communication was preferred by both clinicians (63.0%) and interpreters (70.0%) over telephone or video interpreting. In addition, a higher proportion of interpreters (75.0%) than clinicians (53.0%) indicated they wanted pre-consultation briefings. Clinicians working without interpreters struggled with taking patient histories (59.0%) and understanding patients (56.6%). Access to free interpreting services (χ2 = 16.18, p < 0.001) and positive prior experiences with interpreters (χ2 = 25.30, p < 0.001) were associated with interpreter engagement. Qualitative analysis identified four key themes: (a) structural and cultural barriers limit patients' interpreter choices and compromise trust in interpreter-mediated care; (b) role confusion and deficits in interprofessional communication disrupt service delivery; (c) breakdowns in interpreting accuracy, adaptability, and interpreting modalities affect appointment efficiency and quality of care; and (d) gaps in workforce training, access to interpreter services, and systematic support impede interprofessional collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Effective interprofessional collaboration between interpreters and clinicians to facilitate equitable hearing health care necessitates specialized training, adequate funding, accessible multilingual audiology resources, and structured feedback on interpreter engagement and patient satisfaction.