Post-publication Peer Review (P3R) is an online forum for ongoingreview peer review. To submit a P3R please go to the article you wish to respond to and click on the link that reads "P3Rs: Submit a Response." Submission of P3Rs are open to all health care professionals and experts in related fields.

Post-publication Peer Reviews to:

ARTICLE:
Glenn Flores, M. Barton Laws, Sandra J. Mayo, Barry Zuckerman, Milagros Abreu, Leonardo Medina, and Eric J. Hardt
Errors in Medical Interpretation and Their Potential Clinical Consequences in Pediatric Encounters
Pediatrics 2003; 111: 6-14 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*P3Rs: Submit a response to this article

P3Rs published:

[Read P3R] Ad Hoc Translators Not That Bad!
Norman M. Jensen   (28 May 2003)

Ad Hoc Translators Not That Bad! 28 May 2003
Top
Norman M. Jensen,
Professor of Medicine
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wi

Send letter to journal:
Re: Ad Hoc Translators Not That Bad!

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.