Milagros D Silva1, Stephanie Tsai2, Rosanna M Sobota2, Brittany T Abel2, M Carrington Reid3, Ronald D Adelman3. 1. Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA. Electronic address: mis9202@med.cornell.edu. 2. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA. 3. Division of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Research has shown that using medical interpreters in language-discordant patient-provider encounters improves outcomes. There is limited research evaluating the views of medical interpreters on best interpreter practices when they are used to break bad news or participate in end-of-life (EOL) conversations. OBJECTIVES: To develop insights from medical interpreters about their role when interpreting discussions regarding EOL issues, identify practices interpreters perceive as helping to improve or hinder patient-provider communication, and obtain suggestions on how to improve communication during EOL conversations with Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking patients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with Spanish or Chinese medical interpreters. Participants were recruited until thematic saturation was reached. Twelve interviews were conducted, audiotape recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard qualitative methods. RESULTS: Six major themes were identified: medical interpreters' perceived comfort level during EOL interpretation; perception of interpreter role; communication practices perceived as barriers to effective communication; communication practices felt to facilitate effective communication; concrete recommendations how to best use medical interpreters; and training received/perceived training needs. CONCLUSION: Medical interpreters provide literal interpretation of the spoken word. Because of cultural nuances in Chinese-speaking and Spanish-speaking patients/family members during EOL conversations, medical interpreters can translate the meaning of the message within a specific cultural context. Conducting premeetings and debriefings after the encounter are potentially important strategies to maximize communication during EOL conversations.
CONTEXT: Research has shown that using medical interpreters in language-discordant patient-provider encounters improves outcomes. There is limited research evaluating the views of medical interpreters on best interpreter practices when they are used to break bad news or participate in end-of-life (EOL) conversations. OBJECTIVES: To develop insights from medical interpreters about their role when interpreting discussions regarding EOL issues, identify practices interpreters perceive as helping to improve or hinder patient-provider communication, and obtain suggestions on how to improve communication during EOL conversations with Spanish-speaking and Chinese-speaking patients. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with Spanish or Chinese medical interpreters. Participants were recruited until thematic saturation was reached. Twelve interviews were conducted, audiotape recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard qualitative methods. RESULTS: Six major themes were identified: medical interpreters' perceived comfort level during EOL interpretation; perception of interpreter role; communication practices perceived as barriers to effective communication; communication practices felt to facilitate effective communication; concrete recommendations how to best use medical interpreters; and training received/perceived training needs. CONCLUSION: Medical interpreters provide literal interpretation of the spoken word. Because of cultural nuances in Chinese-speaking and Spanish-speaking patients/family members during EOL conversations, medical interpreters can translate the meaning of the message within a specific cultural context. Conducting premeetings and debriefings after the encounter are potentially important strategies to maximize communication during EOL conversations.
Authors: Phyllis N Butow; Elizabeth Lobb; Michael Jefford; David Goldstein; Maurice Eisenbruch; Afaf Girgis; Madeleine King; Ming Sze; Lynley Aldridge; Penelope Schofield Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Barbara Hayes; Anne Marie Fabri; Maria Coperchini; Rafatullah Parkar; Zoe Austin-Crowe Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Milagros D Silva; Margaux Genoff; Alexandra Zaballa; Sarah Jewell; Stacy Stabler; Francesca M Gany; Lisa C Diamond Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 3.612