A new method for evaluating the quality of medical interpretation.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and implement a method to evaluate the quality of medical interpretation in a pediatric outpatient setting and explore the patterns and correlates of errors and failures in translation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational study of a convenience sample of 13 Spanish-speaking families attending pediatric outpatient clinics at an urban teaching hospital, their English-speaking providers, and interpreters. Visits were audiotaped and transcribed. The transcripts were divided into segments consisting of continuous sections of dialogue in a single language, plus any translation of that dialogue, and segments were coded for characteristics of the translation, word count, and the identity of the speakers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Translation quality on an ordinal scale derived from a set of nominal codes. RESULTS: We found that 66.1% of segments in which translation should have occurred were translated with substantial errors or omissions or not translated at all. In 29.8% of segments, the interpreter engaged in speech unrelated to interpretation. Quality of interpretation was inversely associated with the word count per segment and, independently, whether the interpreter engaged in speech acts which did not consist of interpretation, which we call "role exchange." We give several examples and qualitative discussion of "role exchange" and show that it not necessarily associated with mistranslation but may have egregious consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Interpreters who lack appropriate training fail to interpret accurately. Engaging in speech behaviors other than interpreting is associated with a higher rate of errors.

Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters.

BACKGROUND: About 19 million people in the United States are limited in English proficiency, but little is known about the frequency and potential clinical consequences of errors in medical interpretation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency, categories, and potential clinical consequences of errors in medical interpretation. METHODS: During a 7-month period, we audiotaped and transcribed pediatric encounters in a hospital outpatient clinic in which a Spanish interpreter was used. For each transcript, we categorized each error in medical interpretation and determined whether errors had a potential clinical consequence. RESULTS: Thirteen encounters yielded 474 pages of transcripts. Professional hospital interpreters were present for 6 encounters; ad hoc interpreters included nurses, social workers, and an 11-year-old sibling. Three hundred ninety-six interpreter errors were noted, with a mean of 31 per encounter. The most common error type was omission (52%), followed by false fluency (16%), substitution (13%), editorialization (10%), and addition (8%). Sixty-three percent of all errors had potential clinical consequences, with a mean of 19 per encounter. Errors committed by ad hoc interpreters were significantly more likely to be errors of potential clinical consequence than those committed by hospital interpreters (77% vs 53%). Errors of clinical consequence included: 1) omitting questions about drug allergies; 2) omitting instructions on the dose, frequency, and duration of antibiotics and rehydration fluids; 3) adding that hydrocortisone cream must be applied to the entire body, instead of only to facial rash; 4) instructing a mother not to answer personal questions; 5) omitting that a child was already swabbed for a stool culture; and 6) instructing a mother to put amoxicillin in both ears for treatment of otitis media. CONCLUSIONS: Errors in medical interpretation are common, averaging 31 per clinical encounter, and omissions are the most frequent type. Most errors have potential clinical consequences, and those committed by ad hoc interpreters are significantly more likely to have potential clinical consequences than those committed by hospital interpreters. Because errors by ad hoc interpreters are more likely to have potential clinical consequences, third-party reimbursement for trained interpreter services should be considered for patients with limited English proficiency.