FCC to regulate VRI?

kokonut said:
The one-who-shall-not-be-named is, I think, undertaking a lawsuit against a hospital for communication failure in the death of a family member. Not sure if that is the case but I'm sure there are cases when shoddy interpereting services (non-VRI) had unfavorable results.
Click to expand...

Plenty of cases, hear of them all the times. Even in Courts.

Thats why the CDI thing is growing right now.
 
posts from hell said:
High speed internet and a webcam is all you need. Hospitals are more than likely to have these stuff.

Also sorenson has their VP's in pretty much every hospital (not the "Deaf VPs") for the doctors to share information with eachother.

My experience with Interperters in middle of nowhere has been impressive, especially in Nebraska too.

I had to go to ER once on a drive from western Nebraska to Eastern Nebraska/Iowa.. The interpreters' father just had died, and still showed up an hour later because she was the only qualified interpreter.
Click to expand...

Thanks, PFH; as soon as I clicked enter with my previous comment/question, I knew it was the wrong thing to say/ask, lol. Of course the VRI interpreter could be coming from any where! Good that you have gotten good services.....
 
With thanks to technology, the key to help level the playing fields out there.
 
Tousi said:
This is certainly all new to me. What do you mean by "clients who are not deaf"? What makes VRI interpreters any better, more skilled, whatever...than the VRS interpreters? So a hospital or wherever TRI is offered is a private business and gets around the ADA? I'm confused.....
Click to expand...

Of course, when the hospital or clinic (or whoever) pays for the services, you have less control over quality. Same with VRS, most companies have highly qualified interpreters. The odds of getting a highly qualified interpreter would depend on which company you choose to place a VRS call through and what their ratio of novice/intermediate/master level interpreters are.
 
chip said:
Of course, when the hospital or clinic (or whoever) pays for the services, you have less control over quality. Same with VRS, most companies have highly qualified interpreters. The odds of getting a highly qualified interpreter would depend on which company you choose to place a VRS call through and what their ratio of novice/intermediate/master level interpreters are.
Click to expand...

Is that something the lawmakers overlooked?
 
Tousi said:
Ok, got it now, I think. So if a deafie is in a hospital that has this VRI service, he/she is not required to use it, right? He/she can still ask for a live interpreter to be present, right?[/QUOTE

Exactly... VRI should not replace live interpreting. In hospitals and clinics it is more of a "better than nothing" option. Usually it is used for triage and until a live interpreter can show up. ADA law is clear that accommodations can not be forced upon a person. However, the doctors and nurses have rights too. They can insist on having an interpreter even if the deaf client would prefer to use a friend or family member.

Interesting that more and more spoken language interpreting is utilizing VRI since most of the information we convey is through non-verbal communication.
Click to expand...
 
chip said:
Tousi said:
Ok, got it now, I think. So if a deafie is in a hospital that has this VRI service, he/she is not required to use it, right? He/she can still ask for a live interpreter to be present, right?[/QUOTE

Exactly... VRI should not replace live interpreting. In hospitals and clinics it is more of a "better than nothing" option. Usually it is used for triage and until a live interpreter can show up. ADA law is clear that accommodations can not be forced upon a person. However, the doctors and nurses have rights too. They can insist on having an interpreter even if the deaf client would prefer to use a friend or family member.

Interesting that more and more spoken language interpreting is utilizing VRI since most of the information we convey is through non-verbal communication.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Chip!
Click to expand...
 
Tousi said:
Is that something the lawmakers overlooked?
Click to expand...

Not sure if I understand all of the context of your question... I would suggest that all industries are (should be) consumer driven. Laws should regulate, not mandate business practices. If you are not happy with the services you receive from one company, try another.

Can I expect Ronald McDonald to be responsible for my eating habits? Should the lawmakers mandate that they make caloric information available? What about making it illegal to sell foods that are high in fat/sugar/carbohydrates...? If I choose to eat unhealthy foods, there are natural consequences for my choices. I may be happier sucking down a chocolate shake with my super-sized value meal. Or I may prefer to buy the salad shaker with fat-free splenda dressing...

The point is, we as consumers need to remember that we drive the trends in the market based on our own habitual practices.
 
chip said:
Not sure if I understand all of the context of your question... I would suggest that all industries are (should be) consumer driven. Laws should regulate, not mandate business practices. If you are not happy with the services you receive from one company, try another.

Can I expect Ronald McDonald to be responsible for my eating habits? Should the lawmakers mandate that they make caloric information available? What about making it illegal to sell foods that are high in fat/sugar/carbohydrates...? If I choose to eat unhealthy foods, there are natural consequences for my choices. I may be happier sucking down a chocolate shake with my super-sized value meal. Or I may prefer to buy the salad shaker with fat-free splenda dressing...

The point is, we as consumers need to remember that we drive the trends in the market based on our own habitual practices.
Click to expand...

Sorry....for example oversight on the quality of interpreters....certified, etc....the whole ball of wax. Is that too much to ask?
 
Tousi said:
Sorry....for example oversight on the quality of interpreters....certified, etc....the whole ball of wax. Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...

No... it is not too much to ask. My position would be that there is a minimum standard according to availability. VRS companies need to balance speed of answer with forecasting call demand. You must also factor in a return on investment (ROI) with administrative staff as well as interpreters.

Oversight on the quality of interpreters is set by law but the consumers should demand the higher standard. If you use a company that has consistent quality services and products, they would naturally continue to meet the demands of the consumer... which drives up their ROI.

Does that help?
 
Back
Top