Search results

In an effort to address health care disparities, U.S. laws mandate that health care organizations provide free language interpreting and translation anytime a patient and health care provider cannot communicate in the same language. The heretofore absence of legislative and professional oversight in health care interpreting allows for anyone to interpret. A qualitative study was conducted to understand the conditions and practices of bilingual staff who interpret as a secondary part of their job in community health clinics.

Four focus groups were conducted as part of a study on shared decision-making during interpreted medical visits in a busy, urban clinic serving a large number of limited English proficient (LEP) patients. The focus groups were designed to understand the process of interpreting and how interpreters influence medical decisions between LEP patients and their health care providers. To understand the interpreting process from multiple perspectives, one focus group was conducted with users of interpreters – monolingual health care providers (N=6), two with Spanish speaking men (N=10) who were experienced with interpreted health visits, and one with bilingual staff (N=5) who interpret as an ad hoc feature of their job, also known as dual-role medical interpreters.

Dual-role interpreters use different styles while interpreting what is communicated between health care providers and patients. In some cases, they provide near word-for-word interpretation of what is said. In other cases, they summarize and or paraphrase multiple sentences, seek clarity through questions, and deconstruct culturally laden and technical terms. In still other cases, dual-role interpreters combine interpretation styles within a single interactional exchange. Each of the three major styles of interpreting has advantages in medical settings. Specific style is influenced by health care provider preference, interpreter–health care provider trust and familiarity, and interpreter medical knowledge. Interpreters are challenged by the patients’ dialects, educational level, provider personalities, gender issues, and out of clinic relationships with the patients. Contextual conditions and contingencies of reinforcement contributed to varying methods of interpretation. These conditions included organizational policies, language and bilingual communication, and social relations with both the health care providers and the patients.

These findings demonstrate the complexity of medical interpretation and the critical involvement of health care providers and bilingual staff in facilitating interpreted encounters. Findings suggest the need for training both health care providers and interpreters and possible change in reimbursement for services.

An estimated 50 million people in the United States do not speak the same language as their healthcare provider, and 23 million are considered limited English proficient (LEP). Federal and state laws mandate language assistance services, such as interpreting, to all LEP patients at all points of medical care. Despite longtime and widespread use of interpreting in healthcare, efforts to assure interpreting access and quality are now slowly emerging. An interpreter may be a family member or friend, a bilingual staff member, or professional interpreter. As with trends in other ancillary staff in medicine, the majority of interpreters are female. Research is not available to clarify how gender may influence the process and outcomes of care during an interpreted medical visit. This chapter draws from the results of a brief qualitative study on medical interpreting and published standards on medical interpreting to critically reflect on the role of gender during an interpreted healthcare visit. Recommendations for research and practice are offered to raise awareness of the interpreting process and how it may be influenced by gender. Attention to the role of gender during interpreted medical visits is important to improving healthcare and health for persons with LEP.

Health care professionals (HCPs) face numerous barriers in providing services to limited English proficient (LEP) patients and their families. The purpose of this paper is to explore and expand on the limited scholarship concerning HCPs’ experiences using children as informal interpreters in pediatric consultations.

Ten HCPs from five different fields participated in this study. They were interviewed over the phone and replied to follow-up correspondence about their knowledge on policies for communicating with LEP patients and/or their families when providing medical care.

Using a thematic analysis five themes emerged across all cases: cultural awareness, communication quality, live interpreters as a solution, use of child language brokers (CLBs), and the norm of child language brokering. Through the development of the aforementioned themes, HCPs’ limited awareness of implications when using CLBs and of the established policies related to this phenomenon were apparent.

This lack of knowledge, acknowledged by HCPs, provides a platform from which to create awareness of the need for further education about the potential risks CLBs face when interpreting medical information and of the negative impact this process can have on the overall medical outcome of a patient. Furthermore, it allows the authors to address the ignorance within the health care system that has allowed vulnerabilities to LEP individuals being treated in health care facilities.

This article examines current issues in the use of interpreting services, as experienced by refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. The paper begins with a review of relevant literature on interpreting services and relates it to the service context and the specific needs of refugees and asylum seekers. There follows a discussion of a small‐scale research project carried out with interpreters working in these services. Recommendations are made which include the need to educate all three parties (the professional employing the interpreter, the interpreter and the client) in not only best practice and practical techniques of working with interpreters, but also broader issues such as the complexity of the interpreting process, the importance of establishing trust, competing agendas and negotiation of meaning that are implicit in the interpretation process.

Health monitoring of the migrant population in most European countries shows that migrants have a lower standard of health conditions than the resident population. One of the problems is that the interaction between migrants and general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. Most of the migrants are not able to fully understand the GP’s advice or instructions. GPs report that they are not adequately supported by health institutions, and they are asking for new solutions. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to conduct a systematic review to find existing international approaches to improve the interaction between GPs and their migrant patients.

The literature search identified 2,387 articles, 36 of which met the full inclusion criteria. In total, 12 of the included studies referenced approaches for improving GPs’ communication skills. Seven articles described solutions for a better understanding of cultural differences, and six articles listed approaches to health education for GPs. One article highlighted how health information can improve the interaction between GPs and migrants, and four articles detailed new technologies that could improve and enhance quality of care. The last six articles included good practice strategies described by GPs.

This paper provides an overview of international approaches from the viewpoint of GPs. It concludes that there is no single instrument or method that works in all situations. There are, however, a wide range of approaches available that could lead to substantial improvements in the quality of care for the migrant population.

Different health systems in the reviewed countries and changing roles of GPs must be taken into consideration when making statements about successful approaches. Migrants have different backgrounds and cannot all be categorized as one and the same group of patients. Another limitation of the review concerns the evidence level of the articles included, since most of the studies do not reach high level of evidence. In addition, there is a need to analyze aspects of the relationship between GPs and the migrant population that have been neglected up to now, such as financial issues, patients’ expectations, or lack of trust.

This paper provides an overview of international approaches from the viewpoint of GPs.

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the important and unique challenges that arise when using interpreters while conducting psychotherapy with forced migrants who have experienced a range of human rights abuse.

The paper employs a practice‐based evidence methodology that offers guidance to both clinicians and researchers.

Working with interpreters in the clinical setting is often a challenging and complex process for which mental health professionals are rarely prepared. This paper outlines key strategies to address these challenges and limitations.

Empirically‐based research is lacking and is certainly warranted.

It is the responsibility of programs, training sites, supervisors, and institutions to help teach how to work with interpreters.

This paper addresses how to navigate the key issues that arise through the use of interpreters in a mental health setting with forced migrants, including: initiating a therapeutic relationship with an interpreter; common issues that arise around language; setting the therapeutic frame; and addressing boundaries; acknowledging the role of culture, transference, counter transference, and vicarious trauma; screening to assess competence; training to orient interpreters to clinical work with forced migrants; in vivo feedback; assessments; and an appropriate place to process their experience.

In this article, we examine the demographic changes in the American population and look at communication and culture to make cross‐cultural communications more effective by resolving the problems that occur when communicating between co‐cultures. Therefore, for comparison purposes, we will look at the three major co‐cultures (African American, Asian American, and Hispanic American) as they relate to communication and what is considered the majority culture, European American, and their respective communication patterns. Finally, the authors present guidelines for training programs.

All colleges of medicine in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) adopt English as a language of instructions. This study aimed to examine medical students' views on introducing medical terminology in Arabic within an English-based curriculum.

This descriptive study targeted preclinical second- and fourth-year students in the College of Medicine and Medical Sciences at the Arabian Gulf University, during the academic year 2022–2023 (n = 407). Within the pharmacology teaching material in unit I (second year) and unit VIII (fourth year), which are taught in English, students were provided with medical terms in Arabic. At the end of these two units, students' views were sought by using a self-administered questionnaire.

The number of respondents was 263 (response rate 64.1%: 22.2% males, 77.8% females). Most participants received their school education mainly in Arabic (78.8%). A significant percentage of students believed that providing Arabic terms helped their learning (79.8%). If pharmacology is taught exclusively in English, majority of the students anticipated to face difficulties when explaining drug treatment to their patients in the future (71.3%). Most respondents expected this intervention to help them communicate with patients (86.7%), and preferred to include it in the clinical skills training (82.2%). The second-year students and those whose school education was mainly in Arabic were more likely to agree to the intervention (p < 0.05 for both).

The introduction of medical terms in Arabic is an acceptable alternative to complete Arabization, and is believed to help students in their learning and communication with their patients.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight that the lack of a specific right to a medical translator under International Law can be considered an outlier when viewed within the context of the copious legislation regarding translation in general. Given the lack of specific legislation guaranteeing the right to a medical translator under International Law, the paper further aims to highlight the resulting effects on medical providers and patients.

The paper opted for a detailed historical legal analysis regarding the history of translation under International Law in general, as well as specific international, intranational, and regional legislation regarding the right to a translator in medical settings. The data were complemented by a thorough review of documentary analysis of existing scholarship, detailing the experiences of medical providers and patients.

The paper provides insights as to how international legislators have traditionally viewed medical translation: whether as a matter of international relations, access to care, discrimination, or as a fundamental part of the Right to Health. The paper finds that differing views on the subject have result in nations, regions, and medical providers having great discretion in deciding which patients are provided with a translator. The paper finds that such decisions are often made on a basis other than that of patient health.

Because the provisioning of translators in medical settings currently inevitably falls to a nation or single institution, research into which patients receive a translator and why lacks generalizability (because empirical data are not available for every region of the world). Researchers in future are encouraged to further develop the empirical evidence found in their regions with a more quantitative approach, documenting the non-provisioning of translators in their areas and categorizing the motives behind the decisions of medical providers in a given area.

The paper includes implications for patients who have suffered adverse events after miscommunication (or lack of communication) with their medical providers. The paper aims to investigate in what venue may they seek legal remedy, and on what grounds. The paper also has implications for national and regional governments. Given the lack of binding International Law regarding medical translation, national and regional governments attempt to guarantee the provisioning of translators to some patients and not others. Such decisions may become political and have unintended consequences for medical providers and patients alike.

The paper includes implications for international legislators and national legislators. The paper also includes implications for medical providers and patients, as language barriers are becoming a more common feature in medical facilities around the world due to globalization and migration. The rate of patients suffering adverse events after not being provided with a competent medical interpreter is bound to rise.

This paper fulfills a need to examine medical translation in the context of other types of translation under International Law. This paper fulfills a need to study how the lack of specific International Legislation guaranteeing the right to medical translation has implications for national/regional legislators, medical providers, and patients alike. This paper fulfills a need to discuss the legal remedies available to patients who have suffered adverse medical events after not being able to communicate with their medical provider.