Alterations in Medical Interpretation During Routine Primary Care
Increasing numbers of patients require medical interpretation, yet few studies have examined its accuracy or effect on health outcomes.
To understand how alterations in medical interpretation affect health care delivery to patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), we aimed to determine the frequency, type, and clinical significance of alterations. We focused on best-case encounters that involved trained, experienced interpreters interacting with established patients.
We audio-recorded routine outpatient clinic visits in which a medical interpreter participated. Audiotapes were transcribed and translated into English. We identified and characterized alterations in interpretation and calculated their prevalence.
In total, 38 patients, 16 interpreters, and 5 providers took part. Patients spoke Cantonese, Mandarin, Somali, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and received care for common chronic health conditions.
Unlike previous methods that report numbers of alterations per interpreted encounter, we focused on alterations per utterance, which we defined as the unit of spoken content given to the interpreter to interpret. All alteration rates were calculated by dividing the number of alterations made during the encounter by the number of utterances for that encounter. We defined clinically significant changes as those with potential consequences for evaluation and treatment.
We found that 31% of all utterances during a routine clinical encounter contained an alteration. Only 5% of alterations were clinically significant, with 1% having a positive effect and 4% having a negative effect on the clinical encounter.
Even in a best case scenario, the rate of alteration remains substantial. Training interpreters and clinicians to address common patterns of alteration will markedly improve the quality of communication between providers and LEP patients.
KEY WORDSinterpretation translation communication barriers language physician-patient relations limited English proficiency quality of health care
- 1.Shin HB, Bruno R. Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000. US Census Bureau 2003.Google Scholar
- 4.Jackson J, Zatzick D, Harris R, Gardiner L. Loss in translation: Considering the critical role of interpreters and language in the psychiatric evaluation of non-English speaking patients. In: Loue S, Sajatovic M, Roberts L, eds. Diversity Issues in the Diagnosis, Treatment, and Research of Mood Disorders: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
- 20.Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on Understanding and Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 21.Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination AffectingLimited English Proficient Persons. (Accessed September 10, 2010) http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/resources/specialtopics/lep/policyguidancedocument.html
- 23.NCIHC Announces National Standards for Healthcare Interpreters Training Programs Advisory Committee. National Council on Interpreting in Health Care, 2010. (Accessed September 10, 2010) http://www.prlog.org/10553026-ncihc-announces-national-standards-for-healthcare-interpreter-training-programs-advisory-committee.html
- 24.International Medical Interpreters Association. 2010. (Accessed September 10, 2010) http://www.imiaweb.org/
- 25.Hospitals, Language, and Culture: A Snapshot of the Nation. 2004. (Accessed May 17, 2010, at http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/HLC/HLC_Joint_Commission_Standards.htm)
- 26.Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters, 2010. (Accessed September, 10, 2010) http://www.healthcareinterpretercertification.org/