Prohibiting Babel - A call for professional remote interpreting services in pre-operation anaesthesia information

Introduction

Increasingly multicultural societies and migration in many European countries is creating linguistically more diverse patient populations. Consequently, language barriers are becoming a more pressing issue for healthcare professionals and institutions. In the DACH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), reports show that language barriers affect the routines of healthcare professionals from multiple times a week to daily (1–3). Challenges in communicating and understanding are inevitably linked to problems in establishing informed consent and treatment compliance and negatively affect healthcare routines and health outcomes (4–8). With patient safety in focus, the importance and advantage of effective and professional interpretation services should therefore be apparent to healthcare professionals, clinical operators, and governmental legislators. This study aims to demonstrate how the current status quo of utilising interpreters in an Austrian hospital affects patients’ understanding of medical procedures and consequently their patient safety.

From a legal and ethical perspective, the ability to understand a medical consultation is fundamental to self-determined decision making and thus a basis for informed consent. This right is established in Article 3 of the World Health Organization Declaration on the Promotion of Patients’ Rights in Europe (9), as well as in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (10), and Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (11). In contrast to countries such as Sweden where anyone who cannot speak Swedish has the formal right to an interpreter in the healthcare setting (3, 12), in Austria there is no explicit legislation giving patients the right to medical consultations in their native language. Nonetheless, patients must be able to make informed and self-determined decisions based on the information provided by physicians. It is the legal responsibility of the physician and/or the hospital to demonstrate that patients have understood the medical information provided (1). Very often this is achieved by asking the patients directly (e.g., Did you understand everything? Do you have any questions?), or even indirectly inferring understanding through further verbal or non-verbal cues, e.g., nodding behaviour (4). If as a result of language barriers informed consent cannot be obtained, healthcare professionals are not obliged to conduct medical procedures (except for medical emergencies). In fact, this could even result in liability issues and legal consequences (13).

Importantly, in addition to the legal ramifications, it is well-established that language barriers are associated with several negative outcomes. Patient safety, healthcare routines, patient and healthcare professional satisfaction, patient compliance, and access to health care are all negatively affected when communication and understanding cannot be properly established (14–19). Additionally, problems in understanding can be linked to higher costs as language barriers result in the use of more expensive tertiary health services rather than primary services, multiple visits to physicians, and longer hospital stays (5, 20–22). Therefore, for legal, ethical, economic, and especially patient safety issues, it is of paramount importance that patients understand the planned medical procedures. This necessitates effective and reliable interpretation services.

With respect to interpretation services, the current situation in Austria’s healthcare sector is often as follows: The demand for interpretation is undoubtedly high and will likely increase due to demographic developments. This is supported by a recent Austrian study demonstrating that 71% of healthcare professionals interviewed reported encountering language barriers 2 to 3 times a week. In some departments, physicians sometimes treated patients with insufficient command of German to communicate effectively on a daily basis. In only about 37% of these cases are professional interpreters consulted (1). These rather low levels of professional interpreter use in Austria are in line with international observations (19). Interestingly, although professional interpreters are often theoretically available at clinics (1), most interpretations are (still) conducted with the help of lay interpreters. These are persons available on an ad hoc basis, either family members such as siblings, (underaged) children or parents, or other non-professional interpreters including friends, non-medical hospital staff or even other patients (1, 19, 21).

It is interesting to note that public health guidelines often endorse the use of lay interpreters. The Austrian Ministry of Health, for example, explicitly approves the use of laypersons as interpreters to provide pre-operation diagnostic information and obtain informed consent for operations (23). This fact is critical to note, as using lay interpreters creates challenges in clinical contexts for all parties involved. For example, there are serious implications on the interpreter side: Using non-medical professionals or other available persons (such as other patients or family members) on an ad hoc basis can put severe emotional strain on these interpreters. This factor is considerably aggravated when underaged children function as interpreters (1, 24). Ultimately, this can increase the caregiver burden and diminish their psychological and physical health (25, 26). Additionally, using lay interpreters raises serious confidentiality concerns (1). When physicians or other healthcare professionals use their second (or third) language, a further set of problems may often arise: cultural beliefs and traditions of which they are often unaware can compromise the (medical) information provided (27, 28). Non-proficient speakers, in particular, often overestimate their linguistic abilities, assuming they can sufficiently master a language to “get by” without engaging a professional interpreter (29).

The points above raise concerns about the quality of interpretations provided by lay interpreters, and indeed, more negative health outcomes are reported when lay interpreters are used compared to professional interpreters (5, 22, 29–31). Lay interpreter services are linked to more interpretation errors (31, 32), more emergency room and physician visits (14, 33), a higher risk of readmission, and an increased length of stay (34). This gravely impacts patient safety. Although professional interpretation services require more time, greater organisation, and higher costs (35) in the short run, over the long run they can result in shorter hospital stays, reduced medication, more appropriate treatments, and better clinical outcomes (5). Thus, although empirical evidence strongly points towards better clinical as well as economic outcomes, the reasons for often not using theoretically available interpretation services deserves further scrutiny.

To further investigate how the type of interpreter impacts understanding of medical information, this study considers a typical clinical scenario for which informed consent is required: pre-anaesthetic information for general anaesthesia in elective surgery. We tested how lay and professional interpreters affect patients’ information uptake and recollection of critical clinical facts about anaesthesia. The information provided about anaesthetic procedures is well suited for testing the effects of language barriers as this information is usually presented in a highly standardised manner following best practice guidelines (36–38). This allows for a common comparison standard across different operations and patients with different language backgrounds. We developed a questionnaire to evaluate the patients’ self-reported level of understanding, and included a knowledge assessment with respect to critical facts about anaesthesia. We hypothesised that the level of understanding and recollection will be lower in the patient group which uses lay interpreters. In contrast, the patient group using professional interpreters, or fluent German speaking patients, should show similar levels of understanding and recollection.

This study also considered another important aspect, namely whether telemedical solutions – in this case providing pre-anaesthesia information via phone – are a reliable basis for establishing informed consent (39). This is important to demonstrate, as several national, European, and global agendas (40, 41) promote the use of telemedical consultations in clinical contexts. For example, the restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic clearly demonstrated the need for telemedical solutions. Consequently, these tools will become a more common form of healthcare provision in the near future. In fact, the motto of Austria’s recent health strategy is “Digital before ambulatory before stationary” (42). Although the feasibility of obtaining consent via telephone in anaesthesia settings has been demonstrated in previous studies in Austria (43) and other countries (44), it needs to be shown that remote consultations result in valid and reliable information transfer that allows patients with and without language barriers to establish informed consent. Low levels of subjectively reported understanding and/or low levels of recollection would indicate problems with this method of providing medical information.

Material and Methods

Ethical approval according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki (45) was provided by the Medical University of Vienna Ethics Committee (2138/2017). The manuscript is drafted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology standards (STROBE) (46).

Results

Participants

Thirty participants were included in each group, totalling 90 participants (Age: mean = 49.2, SD = 16.8, Range 18 to 82 years, Sex: 49 female). A priori power calculations using G*Power (52) for the planned χ2-Square tests showed that medium effects (w >= 0.34) can be detected assuming a power of 0.8 and an α of .05 (df = 2; N = 90).

Results 1: Subjective level of understanding

Nearly all participants (>= 97%) reported a good understanding of the anaesthesia information provided, had no open questions, and reported not missing any information – See Fig. 1:

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1:

Subjective level of understanding (three questions)

Following these high levels of understanding, similarly high levels of recall of the provided anaesthesia facts would be expected – see Results 2.

Results 2: Remembering facts about anaesthesia

Fig 2 and Fig 3 show group comparison results (lay vs. professional interpreter vs. German speaker) and statistical tests for the questions concerning anaesthesia facts.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 2:

Remembering facts about anaesthesia: Single fact

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 3:

Remembering facts about anaesthesia: Multiple facts

As can be seen in Fig 2 and Fig 3, the χ2 tests show significant group differences. Critically, within the lay interpreter group, the pattern of answers indicated little recall of facts about anaesthesia (rate of recall 27% to maximum 67%). Strikingly, the fluent German and professional interpreter group clearly recalled anaesthesia facts well, and here rates of recall were very similar (rate of recall: 73% to 100%). These outcomes provide a clear indication: Patients using lay interpreters had great difficulties recalling important aspects of the general anaesthesia information provided by their physicians. Patients using professional interpreters performed as well as patients who speak German fluently.

In a side analysis, we tested outcomes in participants who had indicated having educated themselves about anaesthesia prior to the consultation (e.g., via internet, books, TV, other individuals, previous surgeries, etc.), as this could influence the level of recollection. Overall, the rate of self-education differed significantly between groups (χ2(2) = 6.02, p = .04, Cramers-V = .26). In particular, patients who speak German fluently reported higher rates of self-education compared to the other groups (rate of self-education 53%, standardized residuals > 2). Within the lay and professional interpreter groups, levels of self-education were similar (lay interpreter: 23%, professional interpreter: 33%). Consequently, the observed differences in these two groups cannot be attributed to differences in the rate of self-education. For a more detailed analysis of the relation between self-information to memory between groups, please see Sup B.

Results 3. Questions/explanations provided by physicians

With respect to the final set of questions (Which questions/explanations were provided by physicians?), both the fluent German speaking and the professional interpreter groups reported very high rates of received information. Only 3% of the participants in these two groups missed some information – see Table 1. For the lay interpreter group, however, missing information was reported more frequently (23% no explanation about type of anaesthesia; 30% no explanation about possible side effects; 7% no questions about current diseases).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 1: Did the physician explain/ask for …?

One question resulted in an exception to this general pattern: With regard to chronic pain, all groups reported higher rates of not being asked about this aspect (10% professional interpreter group, 36% fluent German speaking group, and 50% in the lay interpreter group). In sum, while German speaking patients and patients with professional interpreters reported high levels of having received and been asked about clinical information, patients with lay interpreters appeared to have missed some information.

Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to demonstrate the implications of engaging lay interpreters, currently the predominant method used to address language barriers in hospitals in Austria (1). The main results are explicit and direct: Patients using lay interpreters were barely able to reproduce critical facts about anaesthesia immediately after having received them (see Results 2). A lot of critical information is literally lost in interpretation. Support from professional interpreters, however, significantly improved patient comprehension and understanding. In fact, using professional interpreters elevated recollection and understanding of medical anaesthesia information to the same level as in the fluent German speaking control group.

In detail, we identified critical differences between the three groups examined. Those utilising lay interpreters encountered substantial challenges in recalling crucial details (such as side effects and safety information). Both fluent German speaking patients and patients aided by professional interpreters demonstrated high proficiency in recalling information, and performed equally well. Notably, these objective memory assessments sharply contrasted with the subjective self-reported level of understanding (see Results 1 and 2). In this aspect, nearly all participants from the three groups expressed confidence in having understood the information provided, not having missed any information, nor having any open questions. Such a disparity between subjective perception of knowing vs. objectively knowing is a widely examined psychological phenomenon (53). Multiple, not mutually exclusive, theories can be proposed to explain this discrepancy, particularly within the lay interpreter group. Factors such as cognitive bias and distortions (e.g., being overconfident or lacking confidence about one’s own memory abilities), hierarchical and social structures, as well as cultural norms (e.g., reluctance or embarrassment about admitting a lack of understanding, norms within the physician-patient interaction) might all contribute to the observed discrepancy (53–56).

Irrespective of the reasons, the implications of this finding are profound for procedures and workflows in clinical contexts. Frequently, subjective patient self-reports are the sole basis for confirming understanding and comprehension of medical explanations. Our study unequivocally shows that such subjective reports are not a reliable predictor of comprehension and insight. From a patient safety perspective, verbally (or even non-verbally) signalling understanding might not be sufficient proof of the high level of comprehension which is the fundamental basis for informed medical consent. From a legal perspective, in Austria the burden of proof that medical explanations have been understood lies with the physician or care provider (1). Therefore, in legal terms, the conventional procedure of asking a patient if they have understood might not be adequate as an assumed basis for informed consent. Consequently, when there is doubt about having established understanding during a physician-patient interaction – especially where the risk of incomprehension is high (e.g., due to using lay interpreters) – subjective patient reports should be supplemented by explicitly verifiable questions. Although this approach might require extra time and resources (44,45), only through this procedure can high levels of patient comprehension and understanding be ensured. Ultimately, this contributes to improved patient safety and reduces the clinical, ethical, legal, and economic ramifications associated with language barriers (22, 30, 31).

Reliably providing information about clinical procedures is a prerequisite for ensuring patient safety. Physicians often use guidelines to achieve this goal (e.g., Thieme-Compliance, & Diomed; AN01E, see 33). However, in daily clinical procedures, physicians sometimes tend to deviate from guidelines as they adopt the information they provide according to medical and patient needs and the current situation. Deviating from guidelines could result in some information being missed. Nonetheless, our study showed that physicians provided information reliably. The groups of fluent German speakers and patients with professional interpreters reported that physicians had informed / asked about critical anaesthesia-related conditions well (see Results 3) and showed high recollection levels (Results 2). However, patients supported by lay interpreters more often indicated that they had not been informed about or not asked about certain facts. Whether this was due to constraints in using lay interpreters, general problems of understanding, memory problems in patients, or whether physicians did not or only incompletely explain procedures due to language barriers or other organisational or time constraints (interpretations often afford more time especially with lay interpreters), cannot be directly answered by this study. Patient-physician interaction was not monitored due to confidentiality, privacy, and ethical factors.

The second main finding of this study is that, where language is not a barrier, physicians using telemedical tools (in our case via phone) to provide pre-anaesthesia information to patients is a safe and reliable form of information transfer. At the time of the study, external circumstances made telemedical information provision a necessity as the study was conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal contacts would have posed significant risks to patients and healthcare professionals. Not only did the telemedical consultation to provide pre-anaesthesia information mitigate this risk, more importantly it showed that patients reported high levels of understanding and recollection of critical anaesthesia facts. This suggests that consulting patients via phone is a suitable method for informing and educating patients about full anaesthesia in a highly reliable fashion. Consequently, this telemedical method can serve as basis for informed consent for anaesthesia (40).

Conclusions

Compared to lay interpreters, using professional interpreters significantly improves the uptake of critical information about general anaesthesia. It is therefore first and foremost an ethical imperative to act on these outcomes, as improved information transfer is directly linked to better clinical outcomes (1, 7, 14, 16, 19, 65). Consequently, it increases patient safety. Importantly, it might also be a financial imperative as studies clearly indicate long-term cost benefits of using professional interpreters in medical care settings (30, 65).

We strongly recommend raising awareness, improving guidelines, teaching (66) and, importantly, adopting structures and processes in the healthcare setting to overcome language barriers. Physicians sometimes face conflicting interests in their established healthcare routines. Although they often have some awareness of the negative effects of language barriers, they are required to uphold the workflow within the clinical environment with no or few interruptions and forced to treat patients in a time and cost-efficient manner. It is therefore the responsibility of the healthcare provider to enable and enforce structures and processes that allow clinical workflows to incorporate professional interpretation services (67). Lastly and importantly, it is also the responsibility of the government and legislature to act on empirical evidence. For example, recommendations on using lay interpreters within Austria’s public guidelines – “Providing pre-operation information for elective surgeries - BQLL PRÄOP” (18, pp. 9-10) ” – are clearly contested by the strong empirical evidence of our, and other, studies in the literature (1,7, 8, 9,11, 14, 15, 28, 29, 65).

In a nutshell, use professional interpreters in clinical contexts. Anything else could, and should, be considered as negligent and endangering patient safety.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Maria Kletecka-Pulker, David M. Baron

Data Curation: Gernot Gerger, Verena Albrecht

Formal Analysis: Gernot Gerger

Visualization: Gernot Gerger

Methodology: Maria Kletecka-Pulker, David M. Baron

Investigation: Verena Albrecht, David M. Baron, Nikolaus Graf, Armin Langauer, Aylin Bilir

Writing – Original Draft: Gernot Gerger

Writing – Review & Editing: Gernot Gerger, Elisabeth Klager, Klara Doppler, David M. Baron, Harald Willschke, Maria Kletecka-Pulker, Nikolaus Graf, Aylin Bilir, Armin Langauer