This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Abadía-Barrero, C.
Right arrow Articles by Hardt, E. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Abadía-Barrero, C.
Right arrow Articles by Hardt, E. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Nutrition & Metabolism
PEDIATRICS Vol. 111 No. 6 June 2003, pp. 1495-1497

Errors in Medical Interpretation: Our Concerns for Public Health and a Call for Caution

César Abadía-Barrero, DMD
Peter Rowinsky
Jonathan Hausmann
Amy Battisti-Ashe, MA
Grace Peters, MA
Interpreter Services
Children’s Hospital Boston
Boston, MA 02115, USA

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

To the Editor.—

We read with concern Flores et al’s findings on errors in medical interpreting in the January 2003 edition of Pediatrics.1 However, upon closer inspection, we find several flaws in the study’s methods and analyses, which may unnecessarily alarm limited English proficiency (LEP) patients and the clinicians who work with them.

Errors are an acknowledged part of medical practice.2 There exists a well-developed literature of the analysis of error in clinical practice in general.2–6 Among the error classification system used by the authors, we hold that omission, addition, substitution, editorialization, and false fluency are highly debatable categories, they lack reproducibility, and neither correlate necessarily with quality of interpretation nor the quality of care provided. There are other striking flaws in the study that lead to misleading conclusions:

  1. Methodologically, the study lacks proper controls. At the very least, the encounters under analysis ought to have been compared with encounters between non-LEP patients and clinicians, as well as those between LEP patients and clinicians in the absence of an interpreter.
  2. The errors are presented out of context: both interpreters and ad hoc "interpreters" are reported to commit, on average, 31 errors per encounter. This, however, represents only 0.81% of potential word errors (considering that each encounter averaged 3781 words), a far cry from the "alarmingly common" (p. 10) frequency claimed by the authors.
  3. Errors committed by clinicians were attributed to interpreters. The authors defend this by stating that "the study focus was on errors of interpretation made by any staff member acting as a medical interpreter during a clinical encounter" (p. 7). However, their final comparison was not between the number of errors made when an . . . [Full Text of this Article]