Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are Good Intentions Good Enough?: Informed Consent Without Trained Interpreters

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To examine the informed consent process when trained language interpreters are unavailable.

Background

Ensuring sufficient patient understanding for informed consent is especially challenging for patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). While US law requires provision of competent translation for LEP patients, such services are commonly unavailable.

Design and Participants

Qualitative data was collected in 8 prenatal genetics clinics in Texas, including interviews and observations with 16 clinicians, and 30 Latina patients. Using content analysis techniques, we examined whether the basic criteria for informed consent (voluntariness, discussion of alternatives, adequate information, and competence) were evident for each of these patients, contrasting LEP patients with patients not needing an interpreter. We present case examples of difficulties related to each of these criteria, and compare informed consent scores for consultations requiring interpretation and those which did not.

Results

We describe multiple communication problems related to the use of untrained interpreters, or reliance on clinicians’ own limited Spanish. These LEP patients appear to be consistently disadvantaged in each of the criteria we examined, and informed consent scores were notably lower for consultations which occurred across a language barrier.

Conclusions

In the absence of adequate Spanish interpretation, it was uncertain whether these LEP patients were provided the quality and content of information needed to assure that they are genuinely informed. We offer some low-cost practice suggestions that might mitigate these problems, and improve the quality of language interpretation, which is essential to assuring informed choice in health care for LEP patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Laine C, Davidoff F. Patient-centered medicine. A professional evolution. JAMA. 1996;275(2):152–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Marini TS. Decisions about amniocentesis by advanced maternal age patients following maternal serum screening may not always correlate clinically with screening results: need for improvement in informed consent process. Am J Med Genet. 2002;109(3):171–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(9):763–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rapp R. Chromosomes and communication: the discourse of genetic counseling. Med Anthropol Q. 1988;2(2):143–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunne C, Warren C. Lethal autonomy: the malfunction of the informed consent mechanism within the context of prenatal diagnosis of genetic variants. Issues Law Med. 1998;14(2):165–203.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Emery J. Is informed choice in genetic testing a different breed of informed decision-making? A discussion paper. Health Expect. 2001;4:81–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Freda MC, DeVore N, Valentine-Adams N, Bombard A, Merkatz IR. Informed consent for maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening in an inner city population: how informed is it? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1998;27(1):99–106.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. US Census Bureau. QT-02. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000. US Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce 2001 [cited 2001 Nov. 21]. Available from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?ds_name=D&geo_id=D&qr_name=ACS_C2SS_EST_G00_QT02&_lang=en.

  9. Office for Civil Rights. Policy Guidance - Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination as it Affects Persons with Limited English Proficiency. Office for Civil Rights, U S Department of Health and Human Services 2002 [cited 2002 June 19]. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/lep/guide.html.

  10. Fortier JP, Strobel C, Aguilera E. Language barriers to health care: federal and state initiatives, 1990–1995. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9(suppl):S81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hawryluk M. AMA: Doctors shouldn’t pay for translators. Interpreters’ fees often exceed Medicaid payments for office visits. American Medical Association 2002. Available from: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_02/gvsb0114.htm.

  12. Keers-Sanchez A. Mandatory provision of foreign language interpreters in health care services. J Leg Med. 2003;24(4):557–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Perkins J, Vera Y. Legal protections to ensure linguistically appropriate health care. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9(suppl):S62–80.

    Google Scholar 

  14. US Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons. 8-4-2003. HHS Office for Civil Rights.

  15. NCIHC. National Standards of Practice for Interpreters in Health Care. National Council on Interpreting in Health Care 2005. Available from: http://www.ncihc.org/sop.php.

  16. Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62(3):255–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Betancourt JR, Jacobs EA. Language barriers to informed consent and confidentialitiy: the impact on women’s health. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2000;55(5):294–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Carter-Pokras O, O’Neill MJ, Cheanvechai V, Menis M, Fan T, Solera A. Providing linguistically appropriate services to persons with limited English proficiency: a needs and resources investigation. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10 Spec No:SP29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  19. John-Baptiste A, Naglie G, Tomlinson G, et al. The effect of English language proficiency on length of stay and in-hospital mortality. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(3):221–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Riddick S. Improving access for limited English-speaking consumers: a review of strategies in health care settings. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1998;9(suppl):S40–61.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roberts CM. Meeting the needs of patients with limited English proficiency. J Med Pract Manage. 2001;17(2):71–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson E, Chen AH, Grumbach K, Wang F, Fernandez A. Effects of limited English proficiency and physician language on health care comprehension. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):800–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Woloshin S, Bickell NA, Schwartz LM, Gany F, Welch HG. Language barriers in medicine in the United States. JAMA. 1995;273(9):724–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Katz SJ, Welch HG. Is language a barrier to the use of preventive services? J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(8):472–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Burgess MM. Beyond consent: ethical and social issues in genetic testing. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(2):147–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobson GM, Veach PM, LeRoy BS. A survey of genetic counselors’ use of informed consent documents for prenatal genetic counseling sessions. J Genet Couns. 2001;10(1):3–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Braddock CH III, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Headings VE. Revisiting foundations of autonomy and beneficence in genetic counseling. Genet Couns. 1997;8(4):291–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Barnes DM, Davis AJ, Moran T, Portillo CJ, Koenig BA. Informed consent in a multicultural cancer patient population: implications for nursing practice. Nursing Ethics 1998;5(5):412–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Flores G, Abreu M, Schwartz I, Hill M. The importance of language and culture in pediatric care: case studies from the Latino community. J Pediatr. 2000;137(6):842–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McCabe M, Morgan F, Curley H, Begay R, Gohdes DM. The informed consent process in a cross-cultural setting: is the process achieving the intended result? Ethn Dis. 2005;15(2):300–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Simon C, Zyzanski SJ, Eder M, Raiz P, Kodish ED, Siminoff LA. Groups potentially at risk for making poorly informed decisions about entry into clinical trials for childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(11):2173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Huibers AK, van ’t Spijker A. The autonomy paradox: predictive genetic testing and autonomy: three essential problems. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;35:53–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuller JA, Laifer SA. Contemporary approaches to prenatal diagnosis. Am Fam Physician. 1995;52(8):2277–6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kaufert JM, Putsch RW. Communication through interpreters in healthcare: ethical dilemmas arising from differences in class, culture, language, and power. J Clin Ethics. 1997;8(1):71–87.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB. Autonomy, danger, and choice: the moral imperative of an “at risk” pregnancy for a group of low income Latinas in Texas. In: Harthorn BH, Oaks L, eds. Risk, Culture, & Health Inequality: Shifting Perceptions of Danger and Blame. Greenwood Press: 2003:74–103.

  38. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB, Castañeda H. The routine and the traumatic in prenatal genetic diagnosis: does clinical information inform patient decision-making? Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56:302–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Browner CH, Preloran HM, Casado MC, Bass HN, Walker AP. Genetic counseling gone awry: miscommunication between prenatal genetic service providers and Mexican-origin clients. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:1933–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. 2nd ed. Sage Publications; 1994.

  41. Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dailey JV, Pagnotto MA, Fontana-Bitton S, Brewster SJ. Role of the genetic counselor: an overview. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 1995;9(3):32–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wertz DC, Gregg R. Genetics services in a social, ethical and policy context: a collaboration between consumers and providers. J Med Ethics. 2000;26(4):261–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB. Clinical myths of the cultural “other”: implications for Latino patient care. Acad Med. 2005;80(10):918–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Levine RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinic Research. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  46. NSGC. Code of Ethics. National Society of Genetic Counselors 2006 [cited 2006 July 7]. Available from: http://www.nsgc.org/about/codeEthics.cfm.

  47. McQueen MJ. Some ethical and design challenges of screening programs and screening tests. Clin Chim Acta. 2002;315(a):41–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Browner CH, Preloran HM, Cox SJ. Ethnicity, bioethics, and prenatal diagnosis: the amniocentesis decisions of Mexican-origin women and their partners. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(11):1658–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Kenen RH. The at-risk health status and technology: a diagnostic invitation and the ‘gift’ of knowing. Soc Sci Med. 1996;42(11):1545–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Hunt LM, de Voogd KB. Do notions of risk inform patient choice? Lessons from a study of prenatal genetic counseling. Med Anthropol. 2006;25:1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Baillie C, Smith J, Hewison J, Mason G. Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: women’s reactions to false positive results. Br J Health Psychol. 2005;5(4):377–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Filkins K, Koos BJ. Ultrasound and fetal diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17(2):185–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Office for Civil Rights. OCR Fact Sheet—Language Assistance to Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Office for Civil Rights, US Department of Health and Human Services 2000 [cited 2001 Nov. 6]. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/lep/fact.html.

  54. Chen A. Doctoring across the language divide. Health Aff. 2006;25(3):808–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Zabar S, Hanley K, Kachur E, et al. “Oh! She doesn’t speak English!” Assessing resident competence in managing linguistic and cultural barriers. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(5):510–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Karliner LS, Perez-Stable EJ, Gildengorin G. The language divide. The importance of training in the use of interpreters for outpatient practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(2):175–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bender DE, Clawson M, Harlan C, Lopez R. Improving access for Latino immigrants: evaluation of language training adapted to the needs of health professionals. J Immigr Health. 2004;6(4):197–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sherrill W, Crew L, Mayo RB, Mayo WF, Rogers BL, Haynes DF. Educational and health services innovation to improve care for rural Hispanic communities in the USA. Rural Remote Health. 2005;5(4):402.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Ponce NA, Hays RD, Cunningham WE. Linguistic disparities in health care access and health status among older adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(7):786–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the NIH National Center for Human Genome Research (1RO1 HG001384-01). The research was also supported by a grant from the San Antonio Area Foundation. We wish to thank the staff and patients whose kind cooperation made this research possible. Emily Bergstrom, Heide Castañeda, Heidi Connealy, and Aaron Whiteford provided invaluable help with a variety of data analysis and literature review tasks. We also wish to thank Carole H. Browner and Mabel Preloran for their integral involvement and thoughtful insights throughout all phases of the project.

Conflict of interest

None disclosed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, 354 Baker Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Linda M. Hunt PhD

  2. Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Linda M. Hunt PhD

  3. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Katherine B. de Voogd MA

Authors
  1. Linda M. Hunt PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine B. de Voogd MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda M. Hunt PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunt, L.M., de Voogd, K.B. Are Good Intentions Good Enough?: Informed Consent Without Trained Interpreters. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 598–605 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0136-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0136-1

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation