No abstract

Aim: As genomic medicine reaches more diverse populations, there is an increased need for healthcare interpreters who understand and can effectively interpret genomics concepts. Methods: We designed a course for healthcare interpreters on exome sequencing to enhance their preparedness for genomic results disclosure appointments in the Cancer Health Assessments Reaching Many (CHARM) study and beyond. The course was evaluated via pre/post surveys and qualitative interviews. Results: 23 interpreters completed the course; 87% rated it as excellent/very good. Improved pre/post confidence interpreting for genetics appointments was statistically significant; pre/post knowledge was not. Interviews highlighted the need for more discussion time. Conclusion: While the course increased confidence interpreting for exome sequencing results appointments, suggested modifications could enhance knowledge and retention of key concepts.

No abstract

The objective of this study was to identify interpretation challenges specific to exome sequencing and errors of potential clinical significance in the context of genetic counseling for adults at risk for a hereditary cancer syndrome. Thirty transcripts of interpreter‐mediated telephone results disclosure genetic counseling appointments were coded for errors by bilingual researchers, and the coders applied an overall rating to denote the degree to which the errors interfered with communication overall. Genetic counselors reviewed a subset of errors flagged for potential clinical significance to identify those likely to have clinical impact. Qualitative interviews with 19 interpreters were analyzed to elucidate the challenges they face in interpreting for genetic counseling appointments. Our analysis identified common interpretation errors such as raising the register, omissions, and additions. Further, we found errors specific to genetic counseling concepts and content that appeared to impact the ability of the genetic counselor to accurately assess risk. These errors also may have impacted the patient's ability to understand their results, access appropriate follow‐up care, and communicate with family members. Among interpreters' strengths was the use of requests for clarification; in fact, even more use of clarification would have been beneficial in these encounters. Qualitative interviews surfaced challenges stemming from the structure of interpreter work, such as switching from medical and nonmedical interpretations without substantial breaks. Importantly, while errors were frequent, most did not impede communication overall, and most were not likely to impact clinical care. Nevertheless, potentially clinically impactful errors in communication of genetics concepts may contribute to inequitable care for limited English proficient patients and suggest that additional training in genetics and specialization in healthcare may be warranted. In addition, training for genetic counselors and guidance for patients in working effectively with interpreters could enhance interpreters' transmission of complex genetic concepts.