“We can make awful mistakes”: exploring briefing and debriefing practices in hearing care appointments involving spoken language interpreters

OBJECTIVES: Miscommunication between hearing care professionals (HCPs), spoken language interpreters, and patients in interpreter-assisted appointments poses serious risks, including misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment. Structured briefing and debriefing sessions between HCPs and interpreters may mitigate these risks. This study examined the perceptions, practices, and factors influencing structured communication sessions between HCPs and interpreters. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: A mixed-methods design combined semi-structured interviews (n = 33) with an online survey (n = 215) targeting HCPs and interpreters. Descriptive and inferential statistics analysed the quantitative data, while thematic analysis provided qualitative insights. RESULTS: Significant attitude disparities emerged: 75.2% of interpreters favoured pre-appointment briefings versus 53.0% of HCPs (p=.004), while 38.9% and 31.8% respectively supported post-appointment debriefings (p<.001). Two themes emerged: (1) Differing perceptions of briefing contribute to inconsistent implementation, and (2) Limited understanding of debriefing restricts its effective use. CONCLUSIONS: A critical gap exists between perceived value and actual implementation of structured communication practices, increasing risks of miscommunication and potential clinical errors. In audiology, these errors risk diagnostic inaccuracy and suboptimal hearing management. Addressing this requires a multilevel intervention combining interprofessional collaboration education with systemic reforms, including dedicated time allocation and formalised protocols integrated into routine clinical workflows to enhance communication accuracy and improve patient outcomes.