28 Lost in Translation: Canadian Paediatric Resident Education and Practice of Clinical Translation Services
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Canadian paediatric residents provide care to many families with non-English or French language preferences (NEFLP). Lack of communication in a family’s preferred language is inequitable and results in inferior care. Professional medical interpreters offer a route to enhanced understanding and safety. There is no data available about Canadian paediatric residents’ use of interpreters, making it difficult to identify gaps in practice or develop targeted interventions to improve patient experience. Objectives An anonymous, 19-item survey (REDCap) was designed to evaluate: (1) interpreter services available in paediatric training centers; (2) resident perception of their ease of access, utility, and value; and (3) barriers and drivers to interpreter use. This survey represents the first collection of data from Canadian paediatric residents about translator services. Design/Methods Eligible participants included all paediatric residents enrolled in an accredited Canadian paediatric training program. The survey was distributed by email and available for a three-month period. This project was reviewed and considered within the category of quality improvement and thus exempt from formal review by the hospital ethics committee. Descriptive statistics were performed in STATA v15.1. Results 122 residents (approximately 19% of eligible participants) responded. Approximately 40% reported no previous training in interpreter use, and 60% desired more training. Interpreter services are widely available but remain underused in a variety of clinical situations: interpreters are most often used during informed consent (98% ‘mostly’ or ‘always’), family meetings (97%), and history-taking (86%), and least often during physical examinations (41%) and bedside rounds (38%). Residents are more likely to use an interpreter if access is easy (97% ‘more likely’ or ‘likely’) or if there is extra time for the encounter (78%). Most residents (85%) felt they provide better care to patients who share their primary language (English or French), compared with families who prefer other languages. Conclusion Residents are more confident in their clinical and communication skills when working with families who share their primary language compared with NEFLP families, even when an interpreter is present. Our findings suggest that residents lack the training and confidence to provide equal care to families with varying language preferences. Paediatric training programs should develop curriculum content that not only targets safe and effective interpreter use, but also reviews non-spoken aspects of cultural awareness and safety.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,079 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».