Amanda M Gutierrez1, Emily E Statham2, Jill O Robinson3, Melody J Slashinski4, Sarah Scollon5, Katie L Bergstrom6, Richard L Street7, D Williams Parsons8, Sharon E Plon9, Amy L McGuire10. 1. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA. Electronic address: ag3@bcm.edu. 2. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA. Electronic address: estatham@bwh.harvard.edu. 3. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA. Electronic address: jill.robinson@bcm.edu. 4. School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, USA. Electronic address: mslashinski@umass.edu. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA; Texas Children's Cancer Center, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, USA. Electronic address: sxscollo@txch.org. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA; Texas Children's Cancer Center, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, USA. Electronic address: klbergst@txch.org. 7. Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA; Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA; Center for Innovation in Healthcare Quality, Effectiveness, & Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, USA. Electronic address: r-street@tamu.edu. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA; Texas Children's Cancer Center, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, USA. Electronic address: dwparson@bcm.edu. 9. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA; Texas Children's Cancer Center, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, USA. Electronic address: splon@bcm.edu. 10. Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, USA. Electronic address: amcguire@bcm.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe how linguistic tools used by interpreters during return of genomic sequencing results may have impacted communication with Spanish-speaking families, and to discuss the implications for the role of medical interpreters. METHODS: Using discourse analysis, we identified and categorized the various ways hospital-based interpreters adapted clinicians' language in 37 audio-recorded sessions in which Spanish-speaking parents participating in a clinical trial received their child's genomic sequencing results from English-speaking clinicians. RESULTS: We found that interpreters adapted clinicians' statements using five empathic linguistic tools: contextualization, encouragement, checking comprehension, endearment, and softening. Interpreters used an average of four linguistic tools per session, with contextualization and encouragement being the most frequently used. CONCLUSIONS: Interpreters used empathic linguistic tools to alter clinicians' statements when communicating genomic information to Spanish-speaking families. Our findings demonstrate the critical role of interpreters as cultural mediators and facilitators of understanding for Spanish-speaking families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study expands upon the definition of clinical empathy in interpreter-mediated sessions. Our findings suggest that revisions of standards of medical interpretation practice may be warranted regarding interpreters' ability to adapt clinicians' language in a culturally sensitive manner during interpretation.
OBJECTIVES: To describe how linguistic tools used by interpreters during return of genomic sequencing results may have impacted communication with Spanish-speaking families, and to discuss the implications for the role of medical interpreters. METHODS: Using discourse analysis, we identified and categorized the various ways hospital-based interpreters adapted clinicians' language in 37 audio-recorded sessions in which Spanish-speaking parents participating in a clinical trial received their child's genomic sequencing results from English-speaking clinicians. RESULTS: We found that interpreters adapted clinicians' statements using five empathic linguistic tools: contextualization, encouragement, checking comprehension, endearment, and softening. Interpreters used an average of four linguistic tools per session, with contextualization and encouragement being the most frequently used. CONCLUSIONS: Interpreters used empathic linguistic tools to alter clinicians' statements when communicating genomic information to Spanish-speaking families. Our findings demonstrate the critical role of interpreters as cultural mediators and facilitators of understanding for Spanish-speaking families. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study expands upon the definition of clinical empathy in interpreter-mediated sessions. Our findings suggest that revisions of standards of medical interpretation practice may be warranted regarding interpreters' ability to adapt clinicians' language in a culturally sensitive manner during interpretation.
Authors: Amanda M Gutierrez; Jill O Robinson; Simon M Outram; Hadley S Smith; Stephanie A Kraft; Katherine E Donohue; Barbara B Biesecker; Kyle B Brothers; Flavia Chen; Benyam Hailu; Lucia A Hindorff; Hannah Hoban; Rebecca L Hsu; Sara J Knight; Barbara A Koenig; Katie L Lewis; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Julianne M O'Daniel; Sonia Okuyama; Gail E Tomlinson; Margaret Waltz; Benjamin S Wilfond; Sara L Ackerman; Mary A Majumder Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-09-14