A blended communication pathway in an acute Trust
An independent, SBRI-supported evaluation focused on one emergency department, recording how staff actually chose between governed content, live translation and professional interpreters. It is one bounded study within much wider day-to-day use.
- 7,503 Recorded supported interactions
- 1,837 Registered users
- 854 Active users
- 6,199 Governed content interactions
- 1,049 Live Translate interactions
- 255 Interpreter calls – escalation remained available
The situation
An acute Trust with a large multilingual population held a conventional interpreting contract. Booked interpreting worked for planned conversations, but staff had no governed route for the many shorter interactions around them: triage questions, pre-operative instructions, discharge advice and reassurance. The evaluation focused on the emergency department, where that gap is sharpest.
What was deployed
CardMedic was made available on the devices staff already carried, with clinically governed content, Easy Read and Read Aloud formats, Live Translate and a direct route to the Trust’s existing telephone and video interpreting provider.
What the evaluation recorded
Across 7,503 recorded interactions, 6,199 used prepared content, 1,049 used Live Translate and 255 escalated to a professional interpreter. The escalation subset matters because it shows the route stayed open: it is not a target ratio, and a higher figure elsewhere would not indicate failure.
How staff described it
Surveyed staff reported improved and faster communication, with 96% describing communication as faster. These are staff perceptions within one deployment, published with the sample and question wording.
What we would do differently
Baseline measurement should be agreed before go-live, including accessible-format need and escalation rates, so benefits realisation can be compared against the same definitions afterwards.