Non-English-speaking patients. Lost in translation?

What is one of the rules that medical people comply with the least?

My vote goes to "translation." The rule is that you must use a qualified medical interpreter for any interview or discussion with a patient who does not understand English.

How is lack of understanding defined? It is usually fairly obvious. If you aren't sure whether the patient gets it, he probably doesn't.

Why can't family members act as translators?

There is no guarantee that they will understand what is said or transmit it accurately to the patient.

What are the options?

You can summon a translator from the list of hospital personnel who have volunteered to translate. This works if the language in question is Spanish or maybe French. It's not often useful for Bengali or for most of the 13 or so national languages spoken in Mali.

The Joint Commission says if hospital employees are used, they must be qualified as translators and suggests ways that they can become qualified such as language proficiency testing, training in the practice of interpreting, interpreting experience in a health care setting and knowledge of medical terminology.

One website I found while researching this subject claims that the Joint Commission says all on-site interpreters must undergo an FBI background check. I could not verify this with the JC because its standards are only available if you pay. [Digression: If this is true, it is very interesting since doctors and nurses do not have to undergo FBI background checks.]

Many hospitals do not have formal training for interpreters nor are interpreters always available around the clock.

Sometimes hospital administrators take things too literally. In one hospital I know of, a fully bilingual surgeon was told he could not obtain an operative consent in Spanish (his native language) because he had not been trained as an interpreter.

There also are times when the hospital employee is not up to the task either because of education or attitude.

A hospital can contract with a service to provide interpreters via telephone. The advantages are that the interpreters are qualified and speak many different languages, far more than you might find among hospital personnel.

Among the disadvantages is the awkward nature of these conversations. If you use only one handset, you have to keep passing the phone back and forth and you can't hear what the interpreter is saying.

A two-handset phone set-up is somewhat better, but you have to find it. It is always stored in a different place on each floor of the hospital.

Accessing the service can be time-consuming. You must make an 800 call, log in, wait for the interpreter to join and so on.

Either in person or by telephone, the conversation can be frustrating.

I have had occasion to say something to the interpreter that took 2 minutes only to have the interpreter talk to the patient for 10 seconds. Here's a video example.

But the real problem is lack of true physician-patient interaction. You are both talking to someone else. Telling a patient she has cancer or what the risks and benefits of a procedure are is often accompanied by stunned silence from the patient. You really can't tell how much has been understood.

Also worth noting is that whatever the language, most of the time we then have the patient sign a consent form that is written in English.

You may have figured this out by now—many hospitals don't do any of this very well.

What do you do with a patient who speaks a language that even the telephone interpreter service doesn't provide?

We simply do the best we can. I'm not sure that any interpreter, phone or in person, can really communicate with some of these patients. 

Now that I think of it, I'm not sure how many English-speaking patients understand us either.

Informed consent: Must the risk of death be discussed?

Last week, I wrote about the tragic case of a young girl in California who was declared brain-dead after what most media sources called a tonsillectomy. In fact, the patient had a much more extensive procedure for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. In addition to having her tonsils removed, she underwent a uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) and resection (removal) of her inferior nasal turbinate bones.

As I stated before, I will not speculate on whether the surgery was indicated or why the patient died because none of the facts about those two aspects of the case have been disclosed.

Questions have arisen about the informed consent discussion that may have been held with the patient's mother. We obviously do not know exactly what was said. However, some have wondered whether the possibility of death after this procedure was part of the consent process.

The mortality rates for a simple tonsillectomy range from about 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 35,000. For UPPP, the mortality rate for adults is generally quoted at 0.2% or 1 in 500. I was unable to find any information about the mortality rate for that operation in the pediatric age group.

The issue then is—must a surgeon mention death as a possible outcome after this type of surgery?

According to a medico-legal encyclopedia, the disclosure of risk depends on two general elements.

Would other doctors have disclosed the risk of death and would the patient (or family) have made a different decision if the risk of death had been discussed?

A paper from Duke University states the following: "In fact, there is no dictum that death must be included among the risks of every surgical procedure; when the risk of death is so low as to be unexpected and highly improbable, including it may actually be misleading." What they mean is that patients could be unnecessarily dissuaded from agreeing to a procedure they really needed.

The authors of the Duke paper go on to say that the question of how high of a risk requires disclosure is debatable, "but it may range from any chance of death to about 0.1% risk as a reasonable threshold for inclusion." Keep in mind that this is merely an opinion by three surgeons and a medical oncologist.

An informed consent guideline from Harvard says, "The type and the number of risks to be disclosed should depend on the significance the doctor's patient would attach to such risks in deciding whether to consent to the procedure or treatment. (The court recognizes that such disclosure does not apply to all 'remotely possibly risks of proposed treatment' which may be 'almost without limit.')"

The website of Dr. Erik J. Kezirian, a prominent expert in sleep apnea surgery, has information pertinent to this issue. The surgeon lists a number of complications related to UPPP including bleeding, infection, difficulty swallowing, tooth injury, and continued snoring. Notably absent is any mention of death.

I had always heard that adverse outcomes occurring less than 1% of the time need not be part of an informed consent discussion. Again, this is only an opinion. There is no agreed upon standard.

If a malpractice suit is filed, I doubt it will hinge on informed consent, but it is useful to discuss the topic. 

What do you think about informed consent and the risk of death?

[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.]