Week 9 – Discussion Board 1 (There is only one this week)

[Art Liebl]

From the Video: Please list/discuss the 11 errors made by the interpreter. Also, mention all the things that the interpreter did right from each scene. Please reply to two fellow students by Monday. Also, please note: There is only one discussion board this week.

[Cristina Restrepo]

Scene #1 Errors: 1. Pre-session was omitted
2.Interpreter was using 3rd person instead of 1st.
3. Patient was not speaking directly to the provider.
4. Interpreter did not address CEFF (confidentiality, everything, flow, first person)

Scene #2 Errors: 1. Triadic position was not used
Interpreter, however, used an English equivalent translation to convey the message of what the patient had eaten last night.

Scene #3 Errors: 1. Triadic position was not used again
2. Patient was not addressing the provider directly, pt was addressing the interpreter instead.

Scene #4 Errors: 1. Interpreter did not convey information accurately as patient meant to say that her mother and father had stomach ulcers and pt believed her grandmother and uncle also had stomach problems.

Scene #5 Errors: 1. Interpreter did not translate everything that was said such as the interruption from the beeper.
Interpreter, however, asked for clarification on unfamiliar term GERD.

Scene #7 Errors: 1. Interpreter was socializing with the patient while they were waiting for provider to return after provider left to attend beeper call, exposing the interpreter to uncomfortable situations and compromising her professionalism.

Scene #8 Errors: 1. Patient disclosed information that she did not want the provider to know (pt spit up blood). Interpreter agreed on not telling the provider about this.

Scene #9: Interpreter saw the patient’s facial expression when interpreter stated that the doctor wanted to do an endoscopy. Interpreter noticed that the patient was not familiar with term and its meaning.

Scene #10 Errors: 1. Interpreter did not respect the 20 second rule when it comes to the time search party has to speak in order for the interpreter to retain and convey information accurately. Interpreter should have interrupted the provider after the 20 sec mark to ensure message is conveyed accurately.
2. So much information was given by the provider at once that the interpreter was unable to retain everything and a lot of information was omitted during the interpretation process.
3. Interpreter also added information such as: “it is not a complicated procedure, don’t worry about it” which provider did not state.
4. Interpreter did not take notes to help her remember details.

Scene #11 Errors: 1. Provider did not make use of the interpreter as he spoke Spanish to the best of his ability.
2. Interpreter took on the role of patient advocate by helping patient schedule her follow-up appointment.
3. Interpreter also called transportation agency for pick up of patient when patient requested a ride home.

[Yona Souza]

Cristina, great use of all the medical interpreter terms we learned through this course. I like how you mentioned the CEFF protocol, the 20-second rule, triadic positioning, and the patient advocate role!

[Leonisa Avelino]

Hi Christina,
Great job on your analysis! I liked that you mentioned CEFF in Scene 1—that really ties everything together and highlights the importance of covering all interpreter responsibilities.

In Scene 3, you brought up that the patient wasn’t speaking directly to the provider, which I missed. I focused more on the interpreter not translating “CAT scan,” but your point reminded me how important the provider-patient connection is.

Also, for Scene 9, I actually thought there weren’t any errors, but your observation about the patient’s facial expression and confusion was a great catch—I see now how even non-verbal cues can be critical.

Thanks for sharing!

[Leonisa Avelino]

On the video the 11 errors I noticed made by the Interpreter were-
Scene 1
1. Interpreter did not do pre- session
2. She is not interpreting in a first person
Scene 2
1. She started to Interpreter in first person.
2. She did not use triadic positioning
Scene 3
1. The Interpreter did not translate the word CAT scan
Scene 4
1. She did not say in the last year she had two or three stomach issue. She basically omitted information
Scene 5
1. She did not take notes
1. She added Information. Patient did not mention her parents had stomach problem, it was only ulcer.
Scene 6
1. I think when she got the clarification from the doctor about one of the possible problem that the patient may have, she did not explain both to the patient clearly.
2. She did well asking for clarification
Scene 7
1. She was having a conversation with the patient. She was stepping out of her role (breaching role boundaries)
Scene 8
1. she kept important information from the doctor promising the patient that she not say anything. This will actually compromise the patient’s health. The provider cannot provide adequate treatment to the patient without all information being disclosed.
Scene 9
1. I did not catch any error on 9
Scene 10
1. She was not prepared. She did not start to take note immediately, and she accidentally drop her pen and start writing in when the doctor was halfway talking and she did not control the flow of the communication. She missed a lot of information and did not communicate everything that the doctor said.
2. she did well in message clarify. She told the doctor the patient was confused about the procedure.
Scene 11
1, I think the provider can create miscommunication and confusion by speaking a language that he’s not fluent on.
I think as an interpreter, she should’ve asked the patient if she understood what the provider was trying to say so she can clearly understand what’s going on.

The 2nd video
The second session the interpreted did well with pre-session
She did not accept the gift from the patient, which was well done
She did excellent in telling the patient that she does keep information confidential, but anything that she says will be interpreted if she doesn’t want the doctor to know please do not inform her about the situation. She was controlling the conversation. She indicated that the patient has more to say to the doctor. She asked for clarification from the doctor.
She did step into Interpreter advocate role where help her schedule her next appointment
The Interpreter did well at the end where she respectably and professional tell the patient she cannot give her a ride. As an advocate, she had called a Ride for her as it was indicated.

[Cristina Restrepo]

Leonisa, I loved the format in which you presented the information, separating it into two videos. Also really liked how you included how the interpreter must have intervened in some of the situations presented in each scene.

[Yona Souza]

Leonisa, I like how you describe how the errors may create other problems. In the case of the provider speaking in Spanish, you mentioned that it could create miscommunication, and I agree with you.

[Yona Souza]

Scene 1:
-The pre-session wasn’t done
-The patient is focused on talking to the interpreter rather than the provider
– The interpreter used the third-person instead of the first-person

scene 2:
-Triadic positioning wasn’t used
-The interpreter started to interpret in the first person
-She used an alternative English word to convey the message, which was good

Scene 3:
-The interpreter didn’t translate “CAT scan”, which would be “tomografia”

scene 4:
-The interpreter didn’t convey the information correctly; she said stomach problems and ulcers, rather than ulcers.

scene 5:
-She didn’t translate every bit of information, especially when the phone started ringing and the provider said something.
-The interpreter asked for clarification on a word, which was good.

Scene 7:
-The interpreter was socializing and sharing personal details with the patient and vice versa

scene 8#
-The interpreter omitted information and promised not to tell the provider about the blood.

Scene 9:
– The interpreter described the procedure since the patient was unfamiliar with it.

scene 10:
-The interpreter omitted a lot of details because she let the provider talk for too long.

scene 11:
-The provider started to speak Spanish, disregarding the interpreter
-Interpreter advocated for the patient by asking the doctor if he needed her to schedule the next appointment with the patient
-Interpreter requested the transportation agency to give the patient a ride home.

[Cristina Restrepo]

Hi Yona, thank you for pointing out that the interpreter did not translate CAT scan as I did not catch that for that particular scene. I also see that other classmates also picked up on that error as well. Loved how you used the correct terminology “tomografía”.

[Lesly Betancur]

Yona, great summary shows how small missteps, like skipping the pre-session or using third person, can affect communication.

[Milleny Arantess]

Yona, amazing job spotting all of the errors and all that the interpreter did correctly in the different scenes!

[Joseph Matthews]

First Interpreting Encounter
Scene # 1
Errors:
• Interpreter used the 3rd person and not the 1st person
• No (clear) evidence of a pre-session as the patient (P) did not maintain eye contact with Healthcare Provider (HP)
Positive Points:
• Interpreter maintained relatively sound eye contact with both (P) and (HP) and also followed the triadic positioning.
Scene # 2
Errors:
• The interpreter sat right next to the (P) and outside of the required triadic positioning
Positive Points:
• This time the interpreter employed the required / correct 1st person

Scene # 3
Errors:
• The interpreter, once again, as in scene #2, did not employ the triadic positioning
Positive Points:
• This conveyed quite accurately the (HP’s) diagnosis and prognosis
Scene # 4
Errors:
• In this scene – the (P) nods her head concerning (HP’s) comment about the digestive system however, the (P) did not clarify it with a clear “yes” which the interpreter should have reinforced to ensure the (P) clearly understood.
• (P) said she had experienced 2 to 3 episodes of stomach pain in the past while the interpreter only conveyed to the (HP) two episodes.
Positive Points:
• Interpreter maintained clear eye contact with both (P) and (HP), spoke in the 1st person and maintained triadic positioning

Scene # 5
Errors:
• The interpreter inserted the additional point to the (HP) that the (P’s) father and mother had “problems” which was not part of the original answer of the (P) to the (HP)
Positive Points:
• Positive points same as that of scene # 4.

Scene # 6 (in my video – starting at 4:36 – is incorrectly depicted as Scene # 5)
Errors:
• I did not pick up any specific error on the part of the interpreter other than the (P) – once again – nodded her head and the interpreter did not reinforce this by having the (P) confirm with a clear yes – that she understood.
Positive Points:
• The interpreter handled the “beeper interruption” at the beginning of this scene quite well by maintaining the “flow” aspect of the encounter that is given via the CEEF orientation in the manual.

Scene # 7
Errors:
• When the (HP) provider has to exit the encounter to attend another matter – the interpreter lets her guard down when the (P) uses this time to discuss day-to-day personal banalities and the interpreter shifts from a professional encounter to a “coffee break” style of conversation which detracts from the professionalism of the encounter. This takes away from the focus and discipline on the part of the interpreter which, unfortunately, the interpreter allowed to slip by the wayside here.
Positive Points:
• I did not see any specific positive points here in this scene.
Scene # 8
Errors:
• In the continuation of this “beeper interruption” break – where the (HP) is still absent for the encounter – the (P) informs the interpreter of an additional and quite serious symptom she is experiencing but asks the interpreter not to inform the (HP) to which the interpreter, in an unhesitant manner, agrees to do so.
• This is totally unacceptable as it will impede the (HP) to make the correct diagnosis which will wind up endangering the health and well-being of the (P).
• The interpreter should have declined this request in a polite, professional yet polite manner.
Positive Points:
• I did not see any specific positive points in this scene.
Scene # 9
Errors:
• Not so much an error on the interpreter’s part as she conveyed accurately what the (HP) said but, via the facial expression of the (P), it is evident there is a problem brewing.
• Possibly because the (P) does not want the (HP) to know the entire extent of her symptoms and (possibly), based on the interpreter’s error in the previous scene, the (P) was under the impression that the interpreter would have said something to the (HP) – possibly to avoid this request of having to have an endoscopy performed.
•
Positive Points:
• Again – I see no positive points in this scene

Scene # 10
Errors:
• Major errors and problem noted here.
• Due to the lengthy explanation fon the part of the (HP), the interpreter should have politely interrupted his explanation after about 20 seconds – however she did not, and the explanation dragged on way too long.
• The interpreter should have started taking notes but waited too long and her notes were too short.
• What the interpreter passed onto the (P) was only partial – at best – overlooking a cadre of important logistical and technical details – and adding a few “improvisions” of her own- which were not accurate and also misleading for the (P)
• As the (P) is already uncertain and nervous – the above lays the framework for additional problems going forward.
Positive Points:
• Again – I see no positive points in this scene

Scene # 11
Errors:
• Here the interpreter has simply delegated her mission and responsibility of interpreting to the (HP) and has virtually exited the encounter altogether turning the process from a professional encounter into an amateurish affair
• The interpreter was totally passive and absent in this scene
•
Positive Points:
• Again – I see no positive points in this scene

Second Interpreting Encounter
In this second encounter the interpreter, for the most part, performed much better than in the first one. My main takeaways are as follows:
• The interpreter held a pre-session with the (P) which was brief, informative for the (P) and it was professionally done.
• The interpreter did not accept the gift offered by the (P) and was polite and professional in the demeanor in the way she did this
• The pre-session with the doctor was OK however it as not as well done as was the pre-session with the (P)
• The interpreter accurately conveyed the cadre of symptoms concerning the urinary problems to the (HP) to start out the encounter
• When the (HP) asked for additional details – the interpreter accurately conveyed those as well
• At the end of the session – the interpreter took on the role of facilitator by offering the (HP) to assist the (P) in setting up the next appointment in 30 days’ time
• Finally, the interpreter acted correctly by informing the (P) that offering a ride to patients is not permitted, by the rules, but she kindly offered to call a third-party service to provide the patient with a ride home that was greatly appreciated on the part of the (P)

[Leonisa Avelino]

Hi Joseph,
You gave a very detailed and thoughtful analysis—great job! I especially liked your point in Scene 4 about the interpreter not confirming the patient’s understanding with a clear “yes.” That’s something I missed and it’s a good reminder about how important it is to make sure the patient really understands.

Also, in Scene 9, you mentioned the possible carryover effect from Scene 8 where the patient might have expected the interpreter to continue withholding information. That connection between scenes was something I hadn’t considered—really insightful!

Nice job on your summary! I noticed we had a lot of the same takeaways, especially about the interpreter handling the gift and the pre-session professionally. I liked how you pointed out the difference between the pre-session with the patient and the one with the provider—I hadn’t focused on that part, and it’s a good detail to keep in mind.

Great work!

[Cristina Restrepo]

Hello Joseph, very detailed and thorough explanation of each scene as you pointed out the errors as well as the things the interpreter did correctly during each encounter. I also liked how you included the possible consequences, for the patient, of such errors in translation. Well done!

[Lesly Betancur]

Joseph, I enjoyed reading your post! Very well detailed and highlights the important lessons in maintaining professional boundaries and interpreter responsibilities.

[Lesly Betancur]

Scene #1
-No Pre Session
-Interpreter used third person instead of first person
-Patient was not speaking directly to the provider
-CEFF elements were not addressed
*Used Triadic position

Scene #2
-Triadic positioning was not used
*Used first person
*Interpreter used an alternative word to interpret what patient had eaten

Scene #3
-The interpreter didn’t translate “CAT scan” correctly in target language
*Used Triadic position

Scene #4
-Inaccurate interpretation of family history
-Omission of details- The patient mentioned having 2–3 stomach issues in the past year, but the interpreter only mentioned two.
-Lack of clarification- The patient nodded when the provider mentioned the digestive system but didn’t verbally confirm.
*Used first person
*Used Triadic position

Scene #5
-Omission – The interpreter did not translate everything, especially when the provider spoke during the phone/beeper interruption.
-Did not take notes
*The interpreter appropriately asked for clarification on the unfamiliar term GERD.

Scene #7
-Interpreter was socializing waiting for provider to return

Scene #8
-The interpreter withheld critical information from the provider after the patient disclosed she had spit up blood and asked that it not be shared.
-The interpreter agreed, compromising patient safety and the provider’s ability to give appropriate care.
-This omission is a serious breach of interpreter ethics and can negatively impact the patient’s health.

Scene #9
*The interpreter noticed the patient’s confusion after mentioning the term endoscopy.
*She correctly explained the procedure to help the patient understand, which was appropriate and helpful.

Scene #10
-Did not manage the flow
– The provider spoke for too long without pause. The interpreter should have politely interrupted after about 20 seconds to maintain accuracy but failed to do so.
-Delayed and inadequate note-taking – The interpreter dropped her pen, began taking notes too late, and the notes were insufficient for a detailed interpretation.
-The interpreter attempted to interpret the provider’s long explanation but omitted many details due to poor flow control and lack of preparation.

Scene #11
-Provider bypassed interpreter- The provider spoke Spanish, a language he is not fluent in, which risked miscommunication and confusion.
*Interpreter took on the role of advocate- She helped the patient schedule a follow-up appointment and called the transportation agency for a ride home.

[Milleny Arantess]

Lesly, great job on naming all that the interpreter did wrong and what she did correctly. This video was amazing for us to really see how important it is to follow interpreter rules so that there is no confusion inbetween the patient and provider.

[Milleny Arantess]

The 11 errors made by the interpreter were:
Scene #1
There was no pre-session done
The interpreter talked to the provider in the third person instead of the first person
Scene #2
Lack of triadic position
Scene #3
The interpreter didn’t interpret “CAT scan”
Scene #4
The interpreter removed what the patient said. Instead of saying “2 or 3 stomach problems” the interpreter said “2 stomach problems”
Scene #5
The interpreter added to what the patient said. Instead of just saying ulcers, the interpreter said ulcers and stomach problems.
The interpreter didn’t interpret everything the provider said when the phone rang
Scene #7
The interpreter started socializing and sharing personal details with the patient instead of being professional
Scene #8
The interpreter omitted information and promised the patient she wouldn’t tell the provider about the blood
Scene #10
The interpreter omitted a lot of information because she let the provider talk for too long
Scene #11
The only error I saw was that the interpreter didn’t ask the provider to stop speaking Spanish so she could interpret like she was being paid to do.
A few positive things the interpreter did:
Scene #2
The interpreter started talking in first person
The interpreter used an alternative word in English to properly interpret what the patient said to the provider
Scene #5
The interpreter asked for a clarification on a word and then correctly translated it to the patient
Scene #9
The interpreter properly discussed the procedure the provider talked about since the patient was unfamiliar with it
Scene #11
The interpreter advocated for the patient by asking the provider to schedule the patient’s next appointment
The interpreter requested the transportation agency to take the patient home

[Author]

Posts