Sign Language in Hospitals

[pm04slb]

Hey guys! Lovely to meet you all, I have only just joined and I was wondering if you could help me out with your thoughts on this....

I am a 4th year medical student at Peninsula Medical School, in England whoop whoop! Loving my studies but they are quite difficult...

In the holidays I work as a careworker at a home for autistic children, one of whom is profoundly deaf, and communicates via BSL. I managed to grasp a good idea of the language from working with her, and I am currently about half way through my level 2 NVQ.

For part of my medical studies, I am completing a coursework called "The Doctor as a Teacher" where we develop our teaching abilities, teaching a skill to others.

I chose to teach British Sign Language to a group of medical students, and they have all recently taken their unit 101 NVQs, all passing with flying colours!

My reasons for doing this project are that I think it would be useful for deaf patients who use sign language, if their healthcare provider even had a very basic grasp of the language, as this would possibly include both parties a little more in the consultation, and improve rapport and quality of care.

However, as I can not personally experience what it is like to be a deaf patient, I was wondering if I could have your take on things.

I was wondering if any BSL/ASL/ISL users on this forum have had any experiences as a patient in hospital or at the GPs where they felt their point was not getting accross to the Doctor, or where they did not feel a good connection to the person who was treating them?

Do you think Doctors should ideally have a grasp of sign language - even as basic as the alphabet? Or do you think things are good the way they are, and that interpreters etc. are sufficient?

Any thoughts from users, hearing or deaf, would be most welcome! If anyone would like to share their thoughts in private, my email address is stephanie.ball@students.pms.ac.uk.

Thank you ever so much for your help, sorry about the long winded-ness of this post!

 

[deafbajagal]

No, doctors should not have to learn sign language. If a doctor knows a little sign, it does not help me at all. In fact, in some situations, it makes it worse.

A certified and qualifed sign language should be provided upon each visit to assure that clear and two-way communication is occurring.

 

[Brian]

deafbajagal, good point. But, what about doctors that are CODAs (children of deaf adults?)

 

[VamPyroX]

No, doctors should not have to learn sign language. If a doctor knows a little sign, it does not help me at all. In fact, in some situations, it makes it worse.

A certified and qualifed sign language should be provided upon each visit to assure that clear and two-way communication is occurring.

What if it's an emergency and the doctor needs to know right now? It would be better to use some sign language while waiting for a certified interpreter?

 

[jillio]

deafbajagal, good point. But, what about doctors that are CODAs (children of deaf adults?)

CODAs are generally fluent. That is quite different than simply learning some signs.

 

[jillio]

What if it's an emergency and the doctor needs to know right now? It would be better to use some sign language while waiting for a certified interpreter?

Pen and paper.

And emergencies are a good reason for all hopsitals to have a staff terp, rather than having to call one in.

 

[ASLGAL]

I answered YES , but I'd like to qualify my answer by stating....

I agree that all individuals in service positions should have a basic understanding to be able to assess that an interpreter is needed and be able to state to the deaf person(s) that the service person understands and has an interpreter in route.


CODA's should stand up just as students and spouses/parents who sign but are not certified and say -- NOT Interpreter Me!

 

[Aleser]

I think that- at best- it's dangerous for medical professionals to have a "so-so" grasp of ANY language and attempting to use that to communicate with the patient.

If there's one thing I've learned, both in my roles as a patient who might see more days inside a hospital than outside in a year, and as a brilliant idiot who offers even their spare time doing volunteer surgical support- it's that any person, nurse, doctor, lady cleaning the hallway WILL be used as an interpreter.

It's dangerous. It leads to miscommunication and mistakes that can seriously harm or take a life. That's why I believe that ANY medical center with an emergency room or urgent treatment center SHOULD have a trained interpreter on staff, 24/7- no excuses. I've never had the misfortune of a truly severe admission where instant contact was essential to maintaining my wellbeing, and I seriously hope it doesn't happen soon with the conditions of hospitals- goodness knows I can wait hours, or sometimes a day+ as a "somewhat well" patient before someone bothers to "call that one place that one nurse on that one floor said something about that deals with deaf people"

Leave it to the pros, folks.

 

[Reba]

I think that- at best- it's dangerous for medical professionals to have a "so-so" grasp of ANY language and attempting to use that to communicate with the patient.

If there's one thing I've learned, both in my roles as a patient who might see more days inside a hospital than outside in a year, and as a brilliant idiot who offers even their spare time doing volunteer surgical support- it's that any person, nurse, doctor, lady cleaning the hallway WILL be used as an interpreter.

It's dangerous. It leads to miscommunication and mistakes that can seriously harm or take a life.

I agree with all the above.

That's why I believe that ANY medical center with an emergency room or urgent treatment center SHOULD have a trained interpreter on staff, 24/7- no excuses.

If by on staff 24/7 you mean on site 24/7, it's practically impossible. There aren't enough qualified terps around to just sit at all hospitals 24/7 waiting for that once a month (maybe) patient to show up. Also, no hospital is going to pay for someone to sit around waiting for something to happen. If you mean "on call" then you will be working with more than one terp on some kind of rotational duty schedule. Realistically, most hospitals don't have enough deaf patients to justify that kind of staff position.

...I can wait hours, or sometimes a day+ as a "somewhat well" patient before someone bothers to "call that one place that one nurse on that one floor said something about that deals with deaf people"

I do believe that all hospital staff should be made aware of the necessity and procedure for acquiring a terp ASAP.

Leave it to the pros, folks.

Yep.

 

[Ariakkas]

if doctors aren't required to know every language they might encounter, then a signed language is no different.


Deaf people aren't special.

 

[deafbajagal]

Throwing in this fact:

Arkansas Children's Hospital has ten (!!!!) Spanish translators who are staffed there FULL TIME. They are advertising for more translators.

Guess how many sign language interpreters are full-time staff there? Zero.

 

[Interpretrator]

if doctors aren't required to know every language they might encounter, then a signed language is no different.

Yeah, we had a whole thread about this at some point (not a slam on Steph as it was ages ago), and that was my feeling as well. Here in Los Angeles we have I believe one of the highest, if not the highest, number of languages spoken in a U.S. metropolitan area. Which of those languages should doctors know? Most likely they see more Spanish- and Korean-speaking patients who need interpreters than deaf people.

It would be a delightful dream if more doctors knew more languages, including sign. I absolutely agree that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" as far as knowing some sign. On-call interpreters, distance interpreting, pen and paper, etc. are all better and more feasible alternatives to requiring all medical personnel to know sign.

Arkansas Children's Hospital has ten (!!!!) Spanish translators who are staffed there FULL TIME. They are advertising for more translators.

Guess how many sign language interpreters are full-time staff there? Zero.

Out of curiosity, do you know how many Spanish-speaking patients they see per day compared with deaf people?

 

[deafbajagal]

No idea, but I will call the director next week and find out. I do know that an interpreter agency told me that they are constantly sending ASL terps there, almost on a weekly basis.

 

[Ariakkas]

this may be a dumb question..., and completely off topic...


it's been my understanding that a translator works from frozen text...writings usually, and the translators never sees his audience....and an interpreter works with language as its being produced, and is generally seeing his audience.

is it just improper usage of the word to refer to spoken language interpreters as translators and not interpreters?

 

[deafbajagal]

Ariakkas and everyone :

Check out What does an interpreter do? to see the difference between interpreter and translator . According to this, the translator work with text.

I dunno why, but I've always used the term "translator" for spoken languages and "interpreter" for ASL. *shrugging*

 

[Reba]

Throwing in this fact:

Arkansas Children's Hospital has ten (!!!!) Spanish translators who are staffed there FULL TIME. They are advertising for more translators.

Guess how many sign language interpreters are full-time staff there? Zero.

How many Spanish patients do they serve daily?

How many Deaf patients do they serve daily?

 

[Reba]

No idea, but I will call the director next week and find out. I do know that an interpreter agency told me that they are constantly sending ASL terps there, almost on a weekly basis.

Almost weekly, not daily. Almost weekly is not full time work.

 

[pm04slb]

Hey guys thank you so much for your interesting comments. I do agree that it would be wholy wrong of a doctor who knows very little sign language to start taking the role of the interpreter and trying to take an entire medical history in a language they don't really know or understand - and you are right, it would even be considered dangerous! To be honest, I think I use BSL to a good conversational level but I still would not use it in the hospital when treating my deaf patients, per se, I would always either clarify with a pen and paper or get an interpreter.

What you were saying about having an interpreter on site 24/7 in case of emergence, at least in the hospital I work in in England, just isn't the case unfortunately. It might be different in America with private healthcare and all, but the NHS is stony broke as it is and would never employ a full time interpreter for any language, including BSL. In the occassions I have seen, usually a member of the patient's family comes to the rescue, and in the interim whilst waiting for an interpreter, I have even had to ask some basic questions to a patient in French (that was interesting...!) It is less than ideal to say the least.

However, when I meet a deaf patient, adult or child, I do tend to sign something as simple as "Hello, my name is Steph, nice to meet you," just to try and create a level of comraderie and rapport with them. It does always seem to go down well! How would you, as a deaf patient, feel about that?

Out of interest, how do you generally feel as a deaf patient, do you think the level of care you recieve is as good as if you were hearing - or is it even better?

I would be very interested to know.

Thank you so far with your comments!

Much love

 

[Interpretrator]

According to this, the translator work with text.

I dunno why, but I've always used the term "translator" for spoken languages and "interpreter" for ASL. *shrugging*

It's true that translation is for written languages and interpretation is between spoken or signed languages.

 

[webexplorer]

Pen and paper.

And emergencies are a good reason for all hopsitals to have a staff terp, rather than having to call one in.

The main reason is that the hospitals do not want the interpreters to stand up all day awhile they are paid when no deaf patient show up for nothing. I can understand that. But, what about ER? I think that a least that it should provide two interpreters at each hospital. It is very controversial issue for years.