A recent study from the University of Surrey suggests that Remote Medical Interpreting (RMI) might be more harmful than beneficial for healthcare communication.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare industry turned extensively to technology, but interpreters shared mixed experiences, raising concerns about how effective these remote communication tools are in critical medical environments.
The research, led by Dr. Wei Zhang, Dr. Elena Davitti, and Professor Sabine Braun from Surrey, surveyed 47 professional interpreters experienced in remote interpreting across different healthcare settings.
The findings indicate that even though technologies such as telephone and video interpreting are commonly used, they might negatively impact the communication quality between healthcare providers and patients. Many interpreters voiced worries about how these remote techniques affect their work and the patient experience and outcomes.
Important insights from the study included:
- Both Video Interpreting (VI) and Telephone Interpreting (TI) face several shared challenges, like the absence of visual cues in TI and reduced effectiveness of these cues in VI compared to in-person interpreting.
- Interpreters rated both VI and TI as detrimental to effective communication and human interaction, with VI being viewed as somewhat better than TI.
- The challenges of TI and VI have been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic, impacting both technical and interactional elements.
The survey indicated that interpreters often encountered technical issues, such as poor sound quality and missing visual cues, alongside logistical problems like lack of preparatory briefing and constraints on nonverbal and emotional communication in both TI and VI, which hindered their interpretation effectiveness. Interpreters found TI particularly difficult in complex medical situations involving multiple speakers or significant nonverbal communication, such as when delivering bad news.
Dr. Wei Zhang, a PhD holder in Translation Studies and the lead author of the research at the University of Surrey, commented:
“Our study indicates that while remote interpreting can enhance accessibility, it often reduces communication quality.”
“Interpreters frequently mentioned the downsides of remote interpreting, both in video and telephone settings. Nonverbal and emotional exchanges were less effective, and interpreters often felt detached and frustrated by inadequate equipment, unsuitable spatial arrangements for camera and microphone, or poor remote etiquette from clients. These factors can negatively influence their ability to facilitate supportive communication in healthcare.”
Participants for this research were recruited from professional interpreter organizations, language service providers, and healthcare facilities. The survey included five sections aimed at evaluating interpreters’ experiences, perceptions, and the technologies used in telephone and video interpreting.
The study also revealed that the transition to remote interpreting during the pandemic led to reliance on less suitable communication methods for specific medical contexts. Although interpreters felt comfortable using TI for simple conversations, they saw VI as more effective for longer or more complex healthcare interactions. VI was viewed as an acceptable but not completely equivalent substitute for traditional in-person interpreting, particularly in situations where emotional or nonverbal communication is vital. This underscores the importance of selecting the appropriate interpreting method based on the nature of the medical interaction.
Sabine Braun, a Professor of Translation Studies and co-author of the study, stated:
“It’s crucial for healthcare institutions to recognize the possible drawbacks of depending entirely on remote interpreting technologies. As the healthcare landscape evolves in the digital era, understanding these systems’ limitations is essential for ensuring effective communication and patient safety.”
Dr. Elena Davitti, an Associate Professor of Translation Studies, added:
“Healthcare communication goes beyond just language; it involves connection. While we embrace technology, we must emphasize the human aspects of interpreting to guarantee that all patients receive the care they need.”
As interpreters navigate the tech-related challenges, these findings remind us of the intrinsic importance of personal interaction in medical contexts.
