Interpreter perspectives of in-person, telephonic, and videoconferencing medical interpretation in clinical encounters

Abstract

Objective-To examine professional medical interpreters' perspectives of in-person and remote interpreting modalities.Methods-Survey of interpreters at three medical centers assessing satisfaction with aspects of communication using each modality, and adequacy of videoconferencing medical interpretation (VMI) and telephonic interpretation for 21 common clinical scenarios in the hospital and ambulatory care settings.Results-52 interpreters completed the survey (73% response). All modalities were equally satisfactory for conveying information. Respondents favored in-person to telephonic interpretation for establishing rapport (95% versus 71%, p = .002) and for facilitating clinician understanding of patients' social and cultural backgrounds (92% versus 69%, p = .002). Scenarios with substantial educational or psychosocial dimensions had no more than 70% of respondents rating telephonic interpretation as adequate (25-70%); for all of these scenarios, VMI represented an improvement (52-87%).Conclusion-From the interpreter perspective, telephonic interpretation is satisfactory for information exchange, but less so for interpersonal aspects of communication. In scenarios where telephonic interpretation does not suffice, particularly those with substantial educational or psychosocial components, VMI offers improved communication.Practice implications-Differences in interpreters' perspectives of modalities based on communication needs and clinical scenario suggest mixed use of multiple modalities may be the best language access strategy.

Interpreter-mediated dentistry

“…In considering the quality of family interpretations in general medicine, Meeuwesen et al (2010) raised concerns with regard to miscommunication from changes in translation to side-talk activities. Professional medical interpreters have been found to be highly successful in remote contexts using telephone-based interpreting (Price et al, 2012); however, viewing interpreters as ‗smart technology' in face to face consultations was seen as open to possible interpersonal and ethical dilemmas (Hsieh and Kramer, 2012). Flores et al (2012) indicated the critical training period for success with omission, addition, substitution, editorialization and false fluency reduced significantly for non-trained interpreters after 100 hours of training.…”

Not Just “Getting by”: Factors Influencing Providers’ Choice of Interpreters

“…[17][18][19] However, compared to on-site interpreting, telephone interpreting is often rated lower for interpersonal rapport due to a lack of nonverbal communication and problematic discursive style (e.g., repetition and slowed speech). 9,[20][21][22][23] Providers using videoconference interpreting report less understanding about patients' cultural beliefs than those who use on-site interpreting, 19 making videoconference interpreting a problematic choice when cultural competency is important (e.g., end-of-life care).…”

Bilingual Health Communication: Distinctive Needs of Providers from Five Specialties

“…Nevertheless, both are shared attitudes for providers across all specialties. Several qualitative studies have noted the conflicting desires for providers and interpreters, as they negotiate and manage different aspects of care, including therapeutic objectives, interpersonal relationships, education, and empathy, among others (Fatahi et al, 2008; Hsieh, 2006a; Price, Pérez-Stable, Nickleach, Lopez, & Karliner, 2012). If the providers and interpreters are not aware of the competing demands and expectations, they may experience a general sense of frustration or confusion without a clear strategy for resolving such a dilemma (Butow et al, 2011; Fatahi et al, 2008).…”

“…Since then, several studies have systematically examined the differences between professional and family interpreters in their discursive strategies and in providers’ expectations (Leanza, Boivin, & Rosenberg, 2010; Rosenberg et al, 2007; Rosenberg, Seller, & Leanza, 2008). Other scholars have examined how different modes of interpreting (e.g., in-person, video, and telephonic interpreting) may influence patient satisfaction, provider evaluation, and interpreters’ communicative strategies (Locatis et al, 2010; Nápoles et al, 2010; Price et al, 2012). This line of research advances past literature by abandoning the untested presumption that trained interpreters are always better in all situations.…”