​The use of Google Translate could introduce communication errors during consultations with patients, according to an October 29, 2018, article in The BMJ. The article was written in response to recent findings that doctors in the United Kingdom were using Google Translate to overcome language barriers with patients. Using Google Translate could leave doctors vulnerable to criticism and even litigation in the event of an adverse outcome, said a medical advisor quoted in the article. Google Translate has not been validated for use in medical consultation and the risk of error is "significant," the advisor said. Furthermore, using Google Translate would not meet the standards issued by England's National Health Service for interpreters and translators in primary care, the author said. Another expert quoted in the article acknowledged that in some situations use of online translation tools might be acceptable, if there is no better alternative. "If the doctor used the tool in good faith, such as in emergency situations in which there were no better alternatives, and to do nothing would have been harmful to the patient, then it is hard to imagine that expert witnesses and the courts could be critical of their actions," the expert said. Doctors should familiarize themselves with their organization's translation services and raise concerns if they appear to be inadequate, said another expert.

HRC Recommends: Risk managers should remain alert to emerging technologies that can affect patient care and safety and must evaluate the technology's risks and benefits to patient care. As indicated in the article described above, Google Translate and similar applications are inappropriate for use as a substitute for a human interpreter because there is a significant risk of miscommunication that can have serious patient care repercussions. In addition, using applications in this way can open the provider and facility to litigation. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' guidance on compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does not require language interpreters and translators to have formal certification in medical translation or interpretation; however, it does state that facilities should assess interpreter and translator competence to the extent possible and suggests the use of certified interpreters when an individual's rights depend on complete and accurate interpretation.