SPENDING on interpreter and translation services by the NHS in Scotland rose by more than 20 per cent in the five years leading up to the pandemic, new research shows.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which serves a population of 1.2 million people, was also the single biggest spender of any health board or trust in the UK.
The analysis was undertaken by Inbox Translation, a London-based medical translation services provider, to evaluate demand for language services in the health service.
READ MORE: Two new Covid strain upgraded to 'variants of concern'
Across the UK, it found that interpreter services on the NHS were being offered in 120 languages in total, as well as sign language and braille.
Between 2015/16 and 2019/20, spending on translation and interpreting by NHS Scotland increased by 21.4 per cent, from £6.1 million to £7.4m.
That compared to an increase of £27.2% for the NHS across the UK as a whole.
Of the total UK spend of £65.9m in 2019/20, an estimated £56m (85%) was for foreign language interpretation, £8.58m was for sign language services, and £1.45m was spent on written translation.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde spent £3.6m in 2019/20, although researchers stressed this was "probably not surprising, considering they are one of the UK’s largest providers of NHS health care services".
It is also home to Scotland's most diverse population.
READ MORE: Nurse and midwife numbers up by just 280 as thousands quit over job 'pressure'
The Inbox Translation study is the first to assess interpreter services since a 2012 report by the think tank, 2020 Health, recommended that the NHS make use of Google Translate to cut translation costs.
Inbox Translation said this was known to "have high levels of unreliability and inaccuracy".
The report suggests that the increase in spending probably reflects various factors, including an increase in the total numbers of patients being seen as well as a shift away from relying on friends, family members, or volunteers in favour of professional interpreters.
This was "encouraging" and in line with national guidelines following research showing that using relatives "comes with risks of misunderstandings and misdiagnosing", for example if they are embarrassed or reluctant to pass on bad news.
Public Health Scotland also reported that its spend on sign language services had increased from £1,000 in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017, to £26,000 in 2019/2020, following the implementation of a British Sign Language (BSL) Plan in October 2017.
In 2013, NHS Tayside apologised and agreed to pay compensation after the Equality and Human Rights Commission raised legal proceedings on behalf of a 65-year-old deaf patient, Sally Doering, who had spent six days as an inpatient at Perth Royal Infirmary without a sign language interpreter.
Mrs Doering - who had a potentially life-threatening lung infection at the time - was unable to find out what was happening or what was wrong with her, and could not let staff know she was in pain, or even choose her meals.
It was the third time in two years that the PRI had been censured over the same issue.
READ MORE: Investigation into 'very unusual' spike in newborn baby deaths
Concluding its report, Inbox Translation said: "We believe that this study has generated valuable information on the overall NHS spending on translation and interpreting, while also highlighting weaknesses and limitations in data recording which make it impossible to provide a complete picture on spending on various types of services, and trends over time.
"The main recommendation arising from our research is for more comprehensive and consistent data recording on translation and interpreting services on the part of NHS organisations.
"If achieved, this could potentially be used by the NHS and service providers to improve service coverage and cost-effectiveness."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel