My wife is a medical interpreter and I'm an electrical engineer. I
have worked on a number of overseas industrial projects where
communication was through an interpreter.
We present a 1 hour talk, "Working Through an Interpreter", to groups
of nurses participating in a continuing education program at SHMC, a
hospital in Spokane Washington. We advocate the use of "first person"
techniques which are very effective and I believe could eliminate many of
the errors identified in this study.
Using first person techniques, the provider and patient make eye
contact and talk directly to each other, pausing after each phrase or
sentence, allowing the interpreter to repeat the phrase or sentence in the
other language. When done in this way the interpreter does not have a
chance to editorialize, make omissions, or to otherwise control the
conversation. In addition the provider and patient are able to non-
verbally communicate directly with each other.
Anecdotal examples given in the article seem to use a third person
technique (i.e. "Tell her that ...", "What did he say..", etc). I am
curious if any of the interpretation sessions were conducted using the
"first person" technique and if so, did it have any effect on the error
rate or potential clinical consequences.
I think it would be interesting to take into account the
interpretation techniques used (i.e. fist-person vs third-person) in a
future study of this type.
I offer the above comments in the hope that someone will find them
interesting or useful. ;)
Conflict of Interest:
Spouse works as a medical interpreter.