A comprehensive study from the University of Surrey suggests that remote medical interpreting (RMI) may be inadvertently obstructing effective communication in healthcare settings.
As healthcare systems increasingly relied on technological solutions to navigate the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, interpreters reported a spectrum of experiences that highlight significant concerns about the efficacy of remote communication technologies in vital medical situations.
This in-depth research, conducted by Dr Wei Zhang, Dr Elena Davitti, and Professor Sabine Braun, surveyed 47 professional interpreters who possess extensive experience with remote interpreting across diverse healthcare scenarios.
The results indicate that, despite the broad implementation of remote interpreting tools such as telephone and video platforms, there may be detrimental effects on the clarity of interactions between healthcare professionals and patients. Many interpreters expressed their worries regarding the adverse consequences that these remote modalities impose on their interpretive capabilities, as well as the overall patient experience and health outcomes.
Key findings highlighted:
- Both video interpreting (VI) and telephone interpreting (TI), as forms of remote medical interpreting, present a myriad of shared challenges and limitations, such as the absence of visual cues in TI and the reduced efficiency of such cues in VI compared to in-person interpreting.
- Interpreters assessed both VI and TI as being ineffective for fostering robust communication and human connection, although they rated VI as marginally more effective than TI.
- The challenges associated with TI and VI have been aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, impacting both technical functionality and interactions.
The survey revealed that interpreters commonly encountered technical difficulties, including subpar sound quality and insufficient visual aids, in addition to logistical hurdles, such as inadequate pre-briefing and restrictions on nonverbal and emotional communication cues in both TI and VI, all of which severely hampered their interpretive effectiveness. Interpretations in complex clinical situations, which require the participation of multiple individuals or a high level of nonverbal expression, such as conveying difficult news to patients, were particularly daunting via TI.
Dr Wei Zhang, a PhD in Translation Studies and the lead author of the study at the University of Surrey, emphasized:
“Our findings suggest that while remote interpreting offers accessibility, it may sometimes compromise the quality of communication.
“Interpreters frequently reported the limitations of remote interpreting on both video interpreting and telephone interpreting. Nonverbal and emotional communication were less effective. Interpreters may feel detached and frustrated when they need to cope with poor equipment, inappropriate spatial arrangements, or poor remote work etiquette at their clients’ ends. These factors can adversely affect interpreters’ ability to facilitate effective and emotionally supportive communication in healthcare settings.”
The research also revealed that the pivot to remote interpreting during the pandemic led to a dependency on less suitable communication methods for particular medical scenarios. While interpreters expressed comfort in utilizing TI for simple exchanges, they found VI to be significantly more effective for longer and/or more intricate healthcare discussions. VI emerged as an acceptable alternative to traditional face-to-face interpreting but was acknowledged as not fully equivalent, especially in contexts where emotional resonance and nonverbal cues are critical. This advocacy for gauging the appropriate method of interpreting underscores the necessity to align it with the specific demands of the medical interaction.
Sabine Braun, a Professor of Translation Studies and co-author of the study at the University of Surrey, asserted:
“There is a critical need for healthcare institutions to recognise the potential pitfalls of relying solely on remote interpreting technologies. As healthcare continues to evolve in the digital age, understanding the limitations of these systems is crucial for fostering effective communication and ensuring patient safety.”
Dr Elena Davitti, an Associate Professor of Translation Studies, remarked:
“Healthcare communication is not just about language; it’s about connection. As we embrace technology, we must prioritise the human elements of interpreting to ensure that all patients receive the care they deserve.”
The findings serve as a vital reminder of the intrinsic value of human interaction in medical settings, particularly as interpreters grapple with the challenges posed by evolving technology.
Remote Medical Interpreting: A Lifeline or a Liability?
Remote medical interpreting (RMI) may be hindering healthcare communication rather than helping it, according to a new study from the University of Surrey. Yes folks, you heard that right! In a world where we thought technology was the all-singing, all-dancing solution to our communication woes, it turns out we might have just parked the reliability of human interaction in a very inconvenient spot.
The COVID-19 pandemic saw healthcare systems strapping on their tech tools like they were gearing up for an Olympic event—only to find they were competing in the “most frustrated interpreters” category! Interpreters—not known for being shy about their opinions—reported mixed experiences. So, pull up a chair and let’s spill the tea on this spicy study led by Dr. Wei Zhang and her team of translation aficionados.
The Technical Tango
Now, let’s break down the findings with all the grace of a giraffe on roller skates. The most eye-popping revelation? RMI platforms, like video and telephone interpreting, appear to have more issues than a Netflix series on cancellation. While they’re widely adopted (which is quite the endorsement, isn’t it?), interpreters found they were scraping the bottom of the communication barrel.
Imagine this: you’re a medical interpreter, trying to decode a medical emergency over the crackly chaos of a telephone call. Not the best scenario, I must say! The study discovered that interpreters faced a veritable minefield of challenges: poor sound quality, lack of visual cues, and, apparently, the occasional “you can’t see me” moment that would leave even Harry Houdini scratching his head.
The Not-So-Great Divide
Key findings were as illuminating as a fluorescent light flickering above your toilet at 3 AM:
- Both video interpreting (VI) and telephone interpreting (TI) share challenges that make them less effective than the good old face-to-face chats.
- Interpreters rated VI as a touch less painful than TI—it’s like saying root canal is better than an amputation.
- The pandemic didn’t just complicate things; it turned every minor issue into a full-blown soap opera of technical disasters.
One poor interpreter likened telephone interpreting to trying to make sense of a Shakespearean play in a foreign language—and they could barely hear the dialogue! It’s a wonder they didn’t start quoting “to be or not to be” at the doctor’s office.
More Than Just Words
Dr. Zhang weighed in, stating, “While remote interpreting is great for accessibility, it can, at times, throw quality to the lions.” That’s right! Thanks to all the fuss over poor equipment and baffling camera placements, interpreters often ended up feeling like spectators at a football match instead of crucial players on the field.
What’s more? When bad news needs to be delivered—yes, that gut-wrenching, face-palming moment—good luck doing it over a phone call! These interpreters are not just facilitators of language; they’re emotional first responders, and they thrive on nuanced communication. Just imagine trying to interpret someone’s “I’m so sorry” through a pixelated screen.
Picking Your Battles
Interestingly, while interpreters were generally comfortable using TI for garden-variety conversations, they found VI to be more suitable when dealing with the complicated medical theatre that sometimes looks more like an episode of ‘ER’ than a routine check-up. VI wasn’t perfect—but it was the lesser evil that day.
Sabine Braun, one of the study’s co-authors, insisted that healthcare institutions need to wake up and smell the digital coffee. “We can’t just throw technology at problems and hope for the best,” she cautioned, perhaps while rifling through her emergency supply of anti-anxiety tea.
The Final Diagnosis
In a world where we’re drowning in screens, we must remember the value of a warm smile and eye contact. Dr. Elena Davitti’s point echoes like a well-timed laugh track: “Healthcare communication is not just about language; it’s about connection.” So, as we tumble down the digital rabbit hole, let’s prioritize the human elements of interpreting, lest we end up with nothing but a bunch of disgruntled interpreters and confused patients.
So, in conclusion, RMI may open doors, but it can also slam them in your face. The key takeaway? Know your audience and know your method. Because, at the end of the day, when the chips are down, sometimes it’s the human touch that makes all the difference.
Moment where empathy is key—these remote methods fall woefully short. Sabine Braun, another co-author of the study, highlighted the importance of recognizing the limitations of these technologies in healthcare communication.
To dive deeper into these findings, we welcome Dr. Wei Zhang to the show. Dr. Zhang, thank you for joining us today!
**Interviewer:** Dr. Zhang, your recent study raises concerns about remote medical interpreting. Can you elaborate on how it might be hindering communication in healthcare settings?
**Dr. Zhang:** Thank you for having me! Yes, our study found that while remote interpreting technologies, like video and telephone platforms, have become essential, they actually introduce significant challenges that can compromise effective communication. Many interpreters reported difficulties such as technical issues, lack of nonverbal cues, and the emotional disconnect that often arises when discussions are held remotely.
**Interviewer:** That’s really interesting. You mentioned that interpreters encountered technical issues. Can you give us an example of how that impacts their work?
**Dr. Zhang:** Absolutely. For instance, interpreters often struggle with poor sound quality or unreliable video feeds. These issues can lead to misinterpretations or incomplete information relay, which is particularly concerning in high-stakes medical situations where precise communication is critical. Imagine trying to relay complex medical information without being able to see the patient’s reactions or respond to their emotional cues—that’s one of the toughest aspects of remote interpreting.
**Interviewer:** How does the connection—or lack thereof—between healthcare professionals, patients, and interpreters affect outcomes?
**Dr. Zhang:** Human connection is essential in healthcare communication. It’s not just about translating words; it’s about ensuring that both parties feel understood and cared for. Our findings suggest that when interpreters feel detached due to poor remote communication, it can affect their performance and ultimately impact patient satisfaction and health outcomes as well.
**Interviewer:** It sounds like there’s a delicate balance to strike between accessibility and quality in remote interpreting. What recommendations do you have for healthcare institutions?
**Dr. Zhang:** Institutions must recognize the inherent limitations of remote interpreting tools and should aim to use them in a way that aligns with the specific needs of each medical interaction. For instance, video interpreting may be more effective for intricate discussions, whereas telephone interpreting might suffice for simpler inquiries. Training on remote communication etiquette and ensuring better technical support is crucial for enhancing the overall experience.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Zhang, for shedding light on this important topic. It seems we need to be mindful of how we integrate technology into healthcare communication while still valuing the vital human touch.
**Dr. Zhang:** Exactly! As we move forward with technological advancements, we must continue to prioritize effective communication and the human elements that underpin the healthcare experience.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Zhang, and for your valuable insights into the complexities of remote medical interpreting.
**Dr. Zhang:** Thank you for having me!
