No abstract

OBJECTIVE:To examine the informed consent process when trained language interpreters are unavailable.BACKGROUND: Ensuring sufficient patient understanding for informed consent is especially challenging for patients with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). While US law requires provision of competent translation for LEP patients, such services are commonly unavailable. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:Qualitative data was collected in 8 prenatal genetics clinics in Texas, including interviews and observations with 16 clinicians, and 30 Latina patients. Using content analysis techniques, we examined whether the basic criteria for informed consent (voluntariness, discussion of alternatives, adequate information, and competence) were evident for each of these patients, contrasting LEP patients with patients not needing an interpreter. We present case examples of difficulties related to each of these criteria, and compare informed consent scores for consultations requiring interpretation and those which did not. RESULTS:We describe multiple communication problems related to the use of untrained interpreters, or reliance on clinicians' own limited Spanish. These LEP patients appear to be consistently disadvantaged in each of the criteria we examined, and informed consent scores were notably lower for consultations which occurred across a language barrier. CONCLUSIONS:In the absence of adequate Spanish interpretation, it was uncertain whether these LEP patients were provided the quality and content of information needed to assure that they are genuinely informed. We offer some low-cost practice suggestions that might mitigate these problems, and improve the quality of language interpretation, which is essential to assuring informed choice in health care for LEP patients.

Risk modeling is an increasingly important part of clinical medicine; however, "risk status" is a complex notion, understood differently by patients and clinicians. Patients' ability to make informed choices about clinical procedures often requires that they interpret risk statistics, which may be difficult to understand and apply. In this article, which is based on a study of prenatal care in South Texas, we consider how notions of risk affect patient decisions about prenatal genetic testing. The term "risk" carries multiple meanings for clinicians and patients. These meanings may conflate concepts of danger and probability as well as muddle population risk and individual risk. We propose that failure to articulate the varied and contrasting meanings of risk held by clinicians and patients can undermine clinical communication and, thereby, hamper patients' ability to make autonomous, informed choices. Attending to these differences may prove useful in empowering patients to make truly informed decisions.

Comparing patient and clinician interviews bring into question clinicians' notion of Latino culture's role in amniocentesis decision making. Efforts to be "culturally competent," in the absence of a patient-centered approach, may unintentionally encourage stereotyping, thereby negatively affecting the quality and content of clinical care.