Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31443655›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Informed consent at stake? Language barriers in medical interactions with immigrant anaesthetists: a conversation analytical study.

Damaris Borowski, Uwe Koreik, Udo Ohm, Claudia Riemer, Niels Rahe-Meyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Damaris BorowskiCenter for Multilingualism and Language Acquisition (CEMES), University of Münster (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster), Robert-Koch-Str. 29, 48149, Münster, Germany. damaris.borowski@uni-muenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1016-0732
Uwe KoreikFaculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies, Department of German as a Foreign Language, University of Bielefeld, Universitätsstr. 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Udo OhmFaculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies, Department of German as a Foreign Language, University of Bielefeld, Universitätsstr. 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Claudia RiemerFaculty of Linguistics and Literary Studies, Department of German as a Foreign Language, University of Bielefeld, Universitätsstr. 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Niels Rahe-MeyerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Franziskus Hospital, Kiskerstraße 26, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLanguage barriers in doctor-patient interactions are still an understudied phenomenon. This is particularly true concerning interactions with immigrant physicians who are learners of the patient's language; there is a lack of research even though labour migration is increasing internationally. This conversation analytical study focusses on language errors in one specific type of doctor-patient interaction, namely pre-anaesthesia evaluations with immigrant anaesthetists.

methodsThe study combines the research field of language acquisition with that of medical interaction. It is a qualitative study with an ethnomethodological framework which addresses the following research question: How do language errors, produced by immigrant anaesthetists, impact pre-anaesthesia evaluations? The primary data comes from naturally occurring pre-anaesthesia evaluations carried out by immigrant anaesthetists. The analysis method is a combination of conversation and error analysis.

resultsThe study shows that the anaesthetists produced a considerable number of unintelligible utterances, due to various language errors. Despite the lack of understanding, hardly any negotiation of meaning occurred and both sides (anaesthetists and patients) claimed to be satisfied.

conclusionsThe findings appear to be contradictory. An explanation for this can be found in the effect of the roles and scripts that are given in pre-anaesthesia evaluations. Since no negotiation of meaning is initiated during the interactions, the anaesthetists' insufficient language competence leads to a considerable impairment of informed consent, which is the main goal of the pre-anaesthesia evaluations. Based on these findings, the study reveals an urgent need for action regarding immigrant anaesthetists' language skills.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersEmigrants and ImmigrantsInformed ConsentPhysician-Patient RelationsAnesthesiaAnesthesiologistsCommunicationHumansMotivationPreoperative CareQualitative ResearchConversation analysisDoctor-patient-interactionInformed consentLanguage barriersPre-anaesthesia evaluationQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID31443655
PMCPMC6708239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.