Vaccination News Home Page

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/1/6

Access via PAY FOR ADMISSION

Full Text of this Article PDF Version of this Article P3Rs: Submit a response to this article Similar articles found in: Pediatrics Online PubMed PubMed Citation Search Medline for articles by: Flores, G. || Hardt, E. J. Alert me when: new articles cite this article   Download to Citation Manager

Collections under which this article appears: Office Practice

Order reprints of this article

PEDIATRICS Vol. 111 No. 1 January 2003, pp. 6-14

 

Errors in Medical Interpretation and Their Potential Clinical Consequences in Pediatric Encounters

Glenn Flores, MD^*, M. Barton Laws, PhD^||, Sandra J. Mayo, EdM^||, Barry Zuckerman, MD, Milagros Abreu, MD^*,, Leonardo Medina, MD and Eric J. Hardt, MD

^* Center for the Advancement of Urban Children, Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Departments of Pediatrics
Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
^|| Latino Health Institute, Boston, Massachusetts

Background. About 19 million people in the United States are limited in English proficiency, but little is known about the frequency and potential clinical consequences of errors in medical interpretation.

Objectives. To determine the frequency, categories, and potential clinical consequences of errors in medical interpretation.

Methods. During a 7-month period, we audiotaped and transcribed pediatric encounters in a hospital outpatient clinic in which a Spanish interpreter was used. For each transcript, we categorized each error in medical interpretation and determined whether errors had a potential clinical consequence.

Results. Thirteen encounters yielded 474 pages of transcripts. Professional hospital interpreters were present for 6 encounters; ad hoc interpreters included nurses, social workers, and an 11-year-old sibling. Three hundred ninety-six interpreter errors were noted, with a mean of 31 per encounter. The most common error type was omission (52%), followed by false fluency (16%), substitution (13%), editorialization (10%), and addition (8%). Sixty-three percent of all errors had potential clinical consequences, with a mean of 19 per encounter. Errors committed by ad hoc interpreters were significantly more likely to be errors of potential clinical consequence than those committed by hospital interpreters (77% vs 53%). Errors of clinical consequence included: 1) omitting questions about drug allergies; 2) omitting instructions on the dose, frequency, and duration of antibiotics and rehydration fluids; 3) adding that hydrocortisone cream must be applied to the entire body, instead of only to facial rash; 4) instructing a mother not to answer personal questions; 5) omitting that a child was already swabbed for a stool culture; and 6) instructing a mother to put amoxicillin in both ears for treatment of otitis media.

Conclusions. Errors in medical interpretation are common, averaging 31 per clinical encounter, and omissions are the most frequent type. Most errors have potential clinical consequences, and those committed by ad hoc interpreters are significantly more likely to have potential clinical consequences than those committed by hospital interpreters. Because errors by ad hoc interpreters are more likely to have potential clinical consequences, third-party reimbursement for trained interpreter services should be considered for patients with limited English proficiency.

Key Words: language • interpreters • medical errors • children • pediatrics • Hispanic Americans • quality

Abbreviations: LEP, limited in English proficiency • SD, standard deviation

Received for publication Jan 29, 2002; accepted May 24, 2002.

Copyright © 2003 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Disclaimer]

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.