↓ Skip to main content

Clinicians' Obligations to Use Qualified Medical Interpreters When Caring for Patients with Limited English Proficiency

Overview of attention for article published in AMA Journal of Ethics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
91 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinicians' Obligations to Use Qualified Medical Interpreters When Caring for Patients with Limited English Proficiency
Published in
AMA Journal of Ethics, March 2017
DOI 10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.ecas2-1703
Pubmed ID
Abstract

Access to language services is a required and foundational component of care for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP). National standards for medical interpreting set by the US Department of Health and Human Services and by the National Council on Interpreting in Health Care establish the role of qualified medical interpreters in the provision of care in the United States. In the vignette, the attending physician infringes upon the patient's right to appropriate language services and renders unethical care. Clinicians are obliged to create systems and a culture that ensure quality care for patients with LEP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 91 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Arts and Humanities 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 26%