Using interpreters in medical consultations: What is said and what is translated—A descriptive analysis using RIAS. Issue 9 (September 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sleptsova, Marina; Weber, Heidemarie; Schöpf, Andrea C.; Nübling, Matthias; Morina, Naser; Hofer, Gertrud; Langewitz, Wolf
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 100:Issue 9(2017)
• Page Start: 1667
• Page End: 1671
• Publication Date: 2017-09
• Subjects: Healthcare provider-patient interaction -- Interpreter -- RIAS -- Utterances -- Interpreted consultations; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.03.023
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Analysing interpreted consultations using RIAS is feasible. The concordance of utterances with the corresponding translations is not given. A ll participants of an interpreted consultation should be cautioned against the loss of information. Abstract: Objective: To analyse the concordance of original utterances by healthcare providers (HCP) and patients with the corresponding translations by interpreters using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Methods: Video recordings of interpreted consultations were transcribed. Transcription was performed by professional interpreters, who first transcribed consultations in both languages, then provided a translation of what was said in the foreign language. Based on the translations, the videos were coded and analysed using RIAS. Results: Overall, 19 consultations with a total recording time of 865 min were analysed. The main finding is the large difference in the number of utterances in the original language compared to the number of utterances in the target language: about one third of the HCPs' and the patients' utterances were not translated. In no instance were omissions explained to HCP or patient. Conclusion: Interpreters in this sample did not always translate what had been said precisely; they omitted utterances by both HCPs and patients. Practice implications: All participants of an interpreted consultation must be made aware of potential omissions in the process of translation. Further understanding of the causes and consequences of omissions is needed.