ArticlePalliative & supportive care2026
"Language barriers and patient safety in supportive care: Two case reports bridging system-level gaps".
Article in Palliative & supportive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- When language becomes a safety risk in supportive and palliative care.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatients with non-English language preference (NELP) face significant barriers to safe and effective communication in palliative and supportive care. These barriers compromise quality, delay care, and heighten the risk of unmet psychosocial needs, particularly when compounded by health literacy concerns and limited access to translated resources.
methodsWe describe two Spanish-speaking patients with advanced cancer whose inpatient and outpatient supportive care was complicated by language barriers, leading to communication gaps, including symptom misinterpretation and inadequate family discharge education. These factors contributed to significant distress and safety risks.
resultsInterdisciplinary interventions, including professional interpreter use, bilingual supportive care psychology, teach-back education, medication relabeling in Spanish, and culturally tailored communication, helped restore trust, alleviate suffering, and align care with patient and family values. In one case, a lack of validated Spanish versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System within the electronic medical record (EMR) hindered symptom self-reporting and safety. Following multiple requests, the EMR team initiated development of a Spanish-language template to facilitate future integration. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
resultsStructural gaps in language accessibility compound distress, reduce autonomy, and threaten safety. These cases underscore that interpreter services alone are insufficient. Integrating validated multilingual tools into EMRs, standardizing translated discharge instructions, and expanding access to in-person interpreters are critical steps toward equitable care. Institutionalizing linguistically responsive systems is essential for ensuring safety, equity, and dignity in palliative care for patients with NELP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.