Search

BACKGROUND: With the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Army in February 2022, refugees, the majority of whom are women and children, started fleeing the war to neighbouring countries. Even before the current escalation, the conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine has led to the internal displacement of more than 200,000 children, and many others have experienced attacks, e.g. on schools. This inevitably leads to limitations in health care delivery. During transit, overcrowding, poor shelter and vulnerability may further put refugees at increased risk for infectious diseases. This consensus document aims to provide information and guidance regarding health issues that paediatricians and general practitioners may face when caring for Ukrainian children. METHODS: Members of the Migrant Health Reference Group of Paediatrics Switzerland and the Paediatric Infectious Disease Group in Switzerland developed this recommendation between March and April 2022 in a modified Delphi process. RESULTS: A total of 50 recommendations were agreed on with a ≥80% consensus. These include the following topics: i) general aspects, including interpreter services, urgent health needs, personal history and general check-ups; ii) mental health, including how to search for signs of psychological distress without going into traumatic details; iii) vaccinations, including recommendations for evaluation and catch-up; iv) screening for tuberculosis, human immunodeficiency virus, and hepatitis B and C; and v) providing age-appropriate preventive and health service information. CONCLUSION: This document provides current evidence and guidance when caring for paediatric refugees from Ukraine. The recommendations focus on Switzerland but may well be used in other countries. These are based on current evidence and may need to be adapted to individual situations and once further evidence becomes available.

Abstract Background The aim of this nationwide study was to investigate barriers to adequate professional interpreter use and to describe existing initiatives and identify key factors for successful interpreter policies in primary care, using Switzerland as a case study. Methods Adult and paediatric primary care providers were invited to participate in an online cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. All accredited regional interpreter agencies were contacted first by email and, in the absence of a reply, by mail and then by phone. Local as well as the national health authorities were asked about existing policies. Results 599 primary care physicians participated. Among other reasons, physicians identified cumbersome organization (58.7%), absent financial coverage (53.7%) and lack of knowledge on how to arrange interpreter interventions (44%) as main barriers. The odds of organising professional interpreters were 6.6-times higher with full financial coverage. Some agencies confirmed difficulties providing professional interpreters for certain languages at a timely manner. Degrees of coverage of professional interpreter costs (full coverage to none) and organization varied between regions resulting in different levels of unmet needs. Conclusions Professional interpreter use can be improved through the following points: increase awareness and knowledge of primary care providers on interpreter use and organization, ensure financial coverage, as well as address organizational aspects. Examples of successful interventions exist.

Abstract Background With increased international migration, language barriers are likely becoming more relevant in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the language barrier in paediatric and adult primary care, present its consequences, reveal how it is overcome, as well as highlight the use of and potential unmet needs for professional interpreters, using Switzerland as a case study. Methods Primary healthcare providers were invited nation-wide to participate in an online questionnaire on language barriers faced and interpreter use. Results More than 90% of the 599 participants in this nation-wide cross-sectional study face relevant language barriers at least once a year, 30.0% even once a week. Using family members and friends for translations is reported as the most frequent resort for overcoming the language barrier (60.1% report it for more than 50% of encounters), followed by “using gestures” (32.0%) or just accepting the insufficient communication (22.9%). Minors interpret frequently (frequent use: 23.3%). Two thirds of physicians facing language barriers never have access to a professional interpreter, the majority (87.8%) though would appreciate their presence and approximately one quarter of these even see a cost-saving potential. Multiple consequences affecting quality of care in the absence of professional interpreters are identified. Conclusion Language barriers are relevant in primary care. Improved access to professional interpreters is warranted.