You’d be surprised at what they’re actually translating:
Alterations were common, in over 50% of translated statements. Most were editorializations (which they defined as an interpreted passage which combined at least two of either an omission, addition, or substitution) or omissions. 77% of these were judged to be ‘potentially significant’ alterations (which could affect the goals of the conference such as sharing accurate medical information, building rapport, eliciting patient values, establishing treatment goals, etc.) and almost all of these were judged to be negative – interfering with those goals. They note that an average of 16 alterations which could affect treatment decisions occurred each conference.
I wonder if translators are unconsciously trying to help by taking cultural sensitivities or specific language idioms into account.
There may be some cases where an exact, word-for-word, literal translation may not be optimal.
I agree with the recommendation that physicians speak to the translator in short, easily digested, sentences that minimizes misinterpretation.
Ensuring you’re on the same page with the translator prior to seeing the patient is also a good idea.
