While the healthcare sector has relied heavily on technology during the COVID-19 pandemic, interpreters have reported mixed experiences that raise serious questions about the effectiveness of remote communication platforms in settings critical medical conditions.

The study, led by Surrey’s Dr Wei Zhang alongside Dr Elena Davitti and Professor Sabine Braun, surveyed 47 professional interpreters with experience of remote interpreting in various healthcare settings.

This research found that although remote interpreting technologies such as telephone and video interpreting are widely adopted, they can affect the quality of communication between healthcare providers and patients. Many interpreters have expressed concerns about the negative impacts of these remote methods on their performance and overall patient experience and outcomes.

Main conclusions highlighted:

• Video interpreting (VI) and telephone interpreting (TI) as remote medical interpreting (RMI) modalities have many common challenges and limitations, e.g. lack of visual cues in TI and lower efficiency of these signals in VI, compared to in-person interpretation.
• Interpreters rated VI and TI as having a negative impact on the effectiveness of communication and human interactions, but VI was rated more effective than TI.
• The COVD-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing challenges shared by TI and VI, both technically and interactionally.

The survey found that interpreters often faced technical challenges, including poor sound quality and a lack of visual cues, as well as common logistical issues, such as lack of briefing and signal constraints. non-verbal and emotional shared in TI and VI, all of which have a negative impact. impacted their ability to interpret effectively. In particular, interpreters described IT as particularly difficult in complex medical situations involving multiple speakers and/or a high density of nonverbal or emotional communication, such as delivering bad news to patients.

Mr Wei Zhang, PhD in Translation Studies and lead author of the study at the University of Surrey, said:

“Our results suggest that although remote interpreting provides accessibility, it can sometimes compromise the quality of communication.

“Interpreters frequently reported the limitations of remote interpreting, both video and telephone interpreting. Non-verbal and emotional communication was less effective. Interpreters may feel detached and frustrated when dealing with poor equipment, inappropriate spatial arrangements such as positioning in relation to the camera and microphone, or poor remote working etiquette on their clients’ side, can impair interpreters’ ability to facilitate effective and efficient communication. emotional in health care settings.

Study participants were recruited through associations of professional interpreters, language service providers, and healthcare institutions. The survey included five blocks of questions designed to assess the experiences, perceptions, and technologies used by interpreters in the telephone interpreting and video interpreting contexts.

The research also found that the shift to remote interpreting during the pandemic resulted in a reliance on communication methods less suited to some medical contexts. For example, although interpreters felt comfortable using TI for simple interactions, they found VI to be more effective during longer and/or complex healthcare encounters. VI was seen as an acceptable but not fully equivalent alternative to traditional face-to-face interpreting, particularly in contexts where emotional or non-verbal communication is essential. This suggests that the choice of interpretation method should be carefully considered based on the nature of the medical interaction.

Sabine Braun, professor of translation studies and co-author of the study at the University of Surrey, said:

“It is essential that healthcare organizations recognize the potential pitfalls of relying exclusively on remote interpreting technologies. As healthcare continues to evolve in the digital age, understanding the limitations of these systems is crucial to fostering effective communication and ensuring patient safety.

Dr Elena Davitti, Associate Professor of Translation Studies, said:

“Healthcare communication is not just about language; it’s also about connection. As we embrace technology, we must prioritize the human elements of interpretation to ensure all patients receive the care they deserve.

As interpreters navigate the challenges of technology, the results serve as a vital reminder of the inherent value of human interaction in medical settings.