Post-publication Peer Reviews to:
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Norman M. Jensen, Professor of Medicine University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wi
Send letter to journal:
nmj{at}medicine.wisc.edu Norman M. Jensen
|
When I read this article closely, I come to a different conclusion than the authors seem to. Of the 13 interpreted visits studied, 6 were with "qualified" and 7 were with "ad-hoc" interpreters. "Qualified" interpreters averaged 39 errors / visit (14-60, "ad hoc" interpreters 24 (10-58), with no statistical difference between the two. Of "errors of potential medical significance", "qualified" interpreters ageraged 20 / visit (5-34), "ad hoc" interpreters 18 / visit (8-49), with the difference probably not significant statistically or clinically. Statistical significance in group differences in percent all errors that were medically significant, but this statistic is likely flawed by an inflated denominator, i.e., the fact that when a "qualified interpreter" was used, the clinicians made a lot more "fluency errors". And, in this analysis, I see little or no clinical significance. Both groups made too many errors. Clinicians must be on guard for interpretation erros with both types to minimize the adverse medical care consequences. |
|||