Evaluation VRI CanSoc Tele health04

Canadian Society of Telehealth ’04EVALUATION OF VIDEO RELAY INTERPRETING SERVICES FOR THE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING ON THE MAINE TELEHEALTH NETWORK: 

Canadian Society of Telehealth ’04 EVALUATION OF VIDEO RELAY INTERPRETING SERVICES FOR THE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING ON THE MAINE TELEHEALTH NETWORK Dubois T1, Edwards M1, Newton D2, Morin L2 1Maine Telemedicine Services/HealthWays 2Pine Tree Society for Disabled Children & Adults Funded by: Technology Opportunities Program (TOP), US Department of Commerce, and Maine Health Access Foundation (MeHAF)

Video Relay Interpreting Project: 

Video Relay Interpreting Project Technology Opportunities Program (formerly TIIAP) under the US Department of Commerce Maine Healthy Access Foundation A Joint Initiative Of: Maine Telemedicine Services Pine Tree Society for Disabled Children & Adults Maine Hospital Association With Funding From:

What is VRI?: 

What is VRI? 30 frames per second ISDN-based system “Open architecture” Uses licensed, certified medical interpreters Sign language interpreting Two parties at same location communicating through a distant interpreter 384 kilobits per second

What VRI Is Not: 

What VRI Is Not VRI is NOT the same as VRS, or “Video Relay Services” Not Web-based: it does not have the security risks associated with the internet protocol (IP) based VRS systems VRS does not use licensed, certified medical interpreters

Origins of the VRI Project: 

Origins of the VRI Project Pine Tree Society Founded in 1936, Pine Tree Society provides direct service programs statewide to people with disabilities. A Deaf interpreter service launched in 1975 to assist Deaf clients in contacts with non-Deaf individuals: legal procedures, medical appointments, and political hearings. All interpreters associated with the service are certified by the Society.

Need For Expanded Access: 

Need For Expanded Access The majority of qualified interpreters are clustered along the I-95 corridor south of Bangor. A three-hour drive each way is common to respond to hospitals needing interpreting services.

Need For Expanded Access: 

Need For Expanded Access Practitioner Survey Findings

Need For Expanded Access: 

Need For Expanded Access Focus Group Findings

Maine Telemedicine Services: 

    Maine Telemedicine Services A Division of HealthWays: Based in Lubec, Maine Non-profit community health center founded in 1971 Services: Outpatient primary health care Home health care Substance abuse treatment Prevention programs Telemedicine developmental services

MISSION: 

    MISSION “To improve community health and well-being in rural Maine by supporting health care, mental health, social service, government, and educational agencies to enhance access to their services through interactive teleconferencing (ITV) and other technologies.”

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: 

    PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MTS provides comprehensive resource development and technical and professional services to help agencies and providers deliver and receive high quality services via telemedicine and IVC

Maine Telehealth Network: 

    Maine Telehealth Network Approximately 250 sites across the state include health care, mental health, social service, government and educational members and comprise the “Maine Telehealth Network.”

OVERARCHING GOALS: 

OVERARCHING GOALS “To improve Deaf and Hard of Hearing clients’ access to high-quality interpreting services, and to improve knowledge and commitment to meeting this population's communication assistance needs”

EVALUATION ELEMENTSMultifaceted Approach:: 

EVALUATION ELEMENTS Multifaceted Approach: Knowledge Testing Focus Groups Site Coordinator Interpreter Survey Provider Survey Patient/Client Survey

EVALUATION FINDINGSImproved Knowledge & Commitment Level: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS Improved Knowledge & Commitment Level Culture Training Results: 72% average pretest score 90% average posttest score 25% improvement EXAMPLES (True/False) Deaf culture: A Deaf person prefers to be called “hearing impaired” Consumer rights to communication assistance: It is the hospital’s responsibility to provide an interpreter and other services to those who need them

EVALUATION FINDINGSImproved Knowledge & Commitment Level: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS Improved Knowledge & Commitment Level

EVALUATION FINDINGSImproved Knowledge & Commitment Level: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS Improved Knowledge & Commitment Level Site Coordinator Survey (8 of 21 sites reporting): 67% of attendees were direct care staff or registration personnel All sites paid staff for training time One site require approximately 1/3 of staff to receive training; for most sites it was mandatory for 1/5 of staff

EVALUATION FINDINGSImproved Access: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS Improved Access Patient Surveys (23 returned) “True” or “False” Before VRI, I brought a person with me to help: 65% “True” With VRI, I can get help closer to home: 70% “True” Without VRI here, I would not get help: 39% “True” Without VRI here, I have to go to a different hospital and bring a person with me to help me communicate: 39% “True”

EVALUATION FINDINGSHigh Quality of Services: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services Practitioner Survey (23 returned) Quality of Communication with VRI (“Excellent,” “Good,” “So-So,” “Poor,” or “Very Poor”) Patient able to explain problem: 96% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same” Patient understanding of my assessment: 91% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same” Patient understanding of instructions: 91% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same”

EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services

EVALUATION FINDINGSHigh Quality of Services: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services Practitioner Survey (23 returned) Quality of Communication with VRI Versus In-Person Professional Interpreter (“Much Improved,” “Improved,” “Same,” “Worse,” “Much Worse” or “N/A”) Patient able to explain problem: 88% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same” Patient understanding of my assessment: 93% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same” Patient understanding of instructions: 86% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same”

EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services

EVALUATION FINDINGSHigh Quality of Services: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services Practitioner Survey (23 returned) Quality of Communication with VRI versus Without Professional Interpreter: (“Much Improved,” “Improved,” “Same,” “Worse,” “Much Worse” or “N/A”) Patient able to explain problem: 94% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same” Patient understanding of my assessment: 93% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same” Patient understanding of instructions: 94% “Much Improved,” “Improved” or “Same”

EVALUATION FINDINGS: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services

EVALUATION FINDINGSHigh Quality of Services: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services Interpreter Survey (32 returned) (“True” or “False”) Did the hospital staff know how to work with you effectively? 90% “True” Did the hospital staff follow the VRI protocol? 88% “True” Overall, how does your experience with VRI compare to with in-person interpreting (“Better,” “Same,” “A little worse,” Much worse”)? 81% “Same” or “Better”

EVALUATION FINDINGSHigh Quality of Services: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services Patient Survey (23 surveys returned) (“True” or “False”) With VRI, I feel more comfortable with the hospital staff. 90% “True” With VRI, I can communicate better with hospital staff. 85% “True” With VRI, I can explain my problem better. 94% “True”

EVALUATION FINDINGSHigh Quality of Services: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS High Quality of Services Patient Survey (23 surveys returned) (Continued…) With VRI, I understand better what the hospital staff told me about my problem. 95% “True” With VRI, I understand better what I need to do to feel better. 90% “True”