Phone Interpreting vs Face to Face Interpreting?
The market for translating and interpreting is awash with new technology, which is great for patients and providers—when it works. As primarily face to face interpreter, I have often heard doctors and nurses complaining about poor connection or sound quality when using a phone or video interpreter. Luckily, interpreter technology, along with broadband speeds, has come a long way in the last couple of years and the technology works pretty darn well, with a few glitches.
However, given a choice between a phone and an in person interpreter, the overwhelming majority of doctors, nurses, and families prefer an in-person interpreter. Why is this the case?
Benefits of an In-Person Interpreter
As a certified medical interpreter, I can fully execute my scope of practice if I am physically present during the encounter. I can pick up on non-verbal cues, body language, and other visual signals that provide context and nuance. Making eye contact with the patient and building rapport is easier when I am in the room. I have full visibility of the surroundings and procedures taking place. This allows me to interpret medical jargon and descriptions more accurately. For example, I can point to a part of the body being examined or look at a medical document that is being referenced.
My hearing is clearer without relying on technology like phones or microphones. I can hear all parties involved without straining. Being physically present also allows me to clarify anything I may have misheard by simply asking for repetition or rephrasing. This reduces errors in interpretation.
When Phone Interpretation Works Well
That being said, having an in-person interpreter for every medical encounter, even brief ones, is likely not realistic or cost-effective. If the conversation is straightforward like ordering a meal, asking about pain levels, or providing post-op instructions, a phone interpreter can usually communicate this information sufficiently. For short interactions under 15 minutes, the phone option is cheaper in most cases too.
Phone interpretation is also great when a face-to-face interpreter is unavailable, whether due to language pair limitations or an unexpected need arising. Video remote interpretation can be a decent compromise, allowing some visual cues while still providing quick access.
Looking Ahead
Ultimately, an in-person interpreter will provide the highest quality interpretation in most situations. But cost, availability and efficiency determine what option makes the most sense case by case. Technology for remote interpretation is rapidly evolving, with video and even AI-powered solutions emerging. While these can't fully replace human in-person interpreters yet, they provide more options to serve diverse patient populations. The ideal scenario is having multiple interpretation modalities available, so providers can choose what fits each unique circumstance. More access and choice leads to better communication and outcomes for all.
