The hearing-impaired have a right to effective communication in hospitals ? but who gets to define what is effective?
Many deaf people and deaf advocates say live interpretation is the ideal means of communicating. Hospitals, however, often resort to an interpretation service such as Deaf-Talk at a fraction of the cost.
Similar to text telephone interpretation, Deaf-Talk links hospital personnel to a sign interpreter through a video connection.
“I have seen Deaf-Talk work just fine in some situations,” said the Rev. Peggy Johnson of Christ United Methodist Church of the Deaf in Baltimore. “I just want hospitals to acknowledge with grace and humility that Deaf-Talk is not the answer in every situation.”
Johnson watched a congregant suffer in the hospital with severe back pain, while staff members tried in vain to communicate through Deaf-Talk.
“She had to lay flat,” she said. “You can?t see a TV that way,” she said.
Deaf-Talk operates in 350 hospitals nationwide, including 13 in the Baltimore area. The company that produces Deaf-Talk has had three complaints from Baltimore Hospitals, said Dave Stauffer, company vice president and co-owner.
“There is one lawsuit in Maryland; everyone else loves our system,” he said.
He categorized Johnson?s church as troublemakers.
“I know which church [The Examiner is] talking about. It?s a deaf congregation and they?re talking about trouble that doesn?t exist.”
Using Deaf-Talk can cut costs for hospitals. Live interpreter fees are $60 an hour, for a minimum of two hours. Deaf-Talk costs $7 a minute, plus a monthly subscription fee.
The Americans with Disabilities Act compels hospitals to provide effective communication to all patients, but some deaf people said they are receiving less than adequate care.
“For a lot of people who rely on sign language, effective communication can?t occur without [a live] interpreter,” said Elaine Gardner, director of the disability rights project at the Washington Lawyers? Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.
Missing the mark in interpretation
When Ed Chittum?s deaf mother, Ethel Chittum, fell, she was taken to Mercy Medical Center. There, he said, his mother, 86, did not have a live medical interpreter.
“They would not get an interpreter for my mom, and she was in the hospital for three weeks. They brought in the Deaf-Talk TV once, but a lot of the staff doesn?t know how to use that thing,” Chittum said. “I interpreted for her most of the time.”
Mercy officials said the hospital trains its supervisory staff “in accessing and operating Deaf-Talk.” New employees get an introduction to the equipment during orientation.
Chittum said he would like to see hospitals use live interpreters.
“Some hospitals have interpreters and it makes a big difference because you get that personal touch and the patients have someone to talk to,” he said. “Deaf-Talk TV is OK, but to me it?s not satisfying because it?s not on 24 hours a day.”
Deaf-Talk can be a real problem for some, disability law expert Elaine Gardner said.
“It can work and it can be super,” she said. “But if you have a patient who is drifting in and out of consciousness, or a patient who cannot move their head and cannot see the TV screen, then it?s not effective.”
