Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 6

Clinical urgency in translation: risk, priority, and shifts in meaning in Turkish–English emergency-care texts

Büşra Özer Erdoğan(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0478-6683
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: It was found in the study that clinical urgency was maintained in 74 of the 86 units examined (86.0%).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: The aim of the study is to examine the extent to which indicators of clinical urgency, risk and priority in Turkish emergency healthcare texts are preserved in their official English versions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 86 comparable Turkish-English semantic units indicating clinical risk, response time, triage and priority were identified manually from the paired texts.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: It was found in the study that clinical urgency was maintained in 74 of the 86 units examined (86.0%).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Medical translation · risk communication · emergency healthcare services

Abstract

Aims: The aim of the study is to examine the extent to which indicators of clinical urgency, risk and priority in Turkish emergency healthcare texts are preserved in their official English versions. Methods: The study analysed paired Turkish and official English emergency healthcare information texts published on the websites of nine public hospitals affiliated with the Ministry of Health. A total of 86 comparable Turkish-English semantic units indicating clinical risk, response time, triage and priority were identified manually from the paired texts. From a medical translation perspective, the analysis drew on functionalist approaches to translation and the concepts of communicative function and functional adequacy, applying three analytical dimensions: risk and certainty, temporal urgency, and action and priority. Source-target relations were coded as urgency maintained (UM), urgency amplified (UA), urgency downgraded (UD), urgency reframed (UR), or urgency ambiguous (UAmb). Results: It was found in the study that clinical urgency was maintained in 74 of the 86 units examined (86.0%). Urgency was amplified in two units (2.3%), downgraded in three units (3.5%), reframed in four units (4.7%), and rendered ambiguous in three units (3.5%). The shifts concerned risk and certainty, temporal urgency, and action and priority, resulting in differences in functional correspondence between source and target units. Conclusion: The findings indicate that clinical urgency is generally preserved in English emergency health communications; however, some translation changes may be significant in terms of conveying risk and the necessity for intervention. It is concluded that functional adequacy in the translation of emergency health texts depends on preserving the source text’s risk, urgency and priority functions in the target text.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erdoğan, B. Ö. (2026). Clinical urgency in translation: risk, priority, and shifts in meaning in Turkish–English emergency-care texts. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 6. https://ajindex.com/articles/1668038

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Askehave I, Zethsen KK. Translating for laymen. Perspectives. 2002;10(1):15-29. doi:10.1080/0907676X.2002.9961431
  2. Montalt V, González-Davies M. Medical Translation Step by Step: Learning by Drafting. Routledge; 2014. doi:10.4324/9781315760377
  3. House J. Translation Quality Assessment: Past and Present. Routledge; 2015.
  4. Nord C. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches Explained. St. Jerome Publishing; 1997.
  5. Angelelli CV. Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge University Press; 2004. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511486616
  6. Flores G, Laws MB, Mayo SJ, et al. Errors in medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences in pediatric encounters. Pediatrics. 2003;111(1):6-14. doi:10.1542/peds.111.1.6
  7. Flores G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62(3):255-299. doi:10.1177/1077558705275416
  8. Karliner LS, Jacobs EA, Chen AH, Mutha S. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(2):727-754. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x
  9. Divi C, Koss RG, Schmaltz SP, Loeb JM. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(2):60-67. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzl069
  10. van Rosse F, de Bruijne M, Suurmond J, Essink-Bot ML, Wagner C. Language barriers and patient safety risks in hospital care: a mixed methods study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;54:45-53. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.03.012
  11. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Coates WC, Pitkin K. Use and effectiveness of interpreters in an emergency department. JAMA. 1996;275(10):783-788. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530340047028
  12. Sarver J, Baker DW. Effect of language barriers on follow-up appointments after an emergency department visit. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(4):256-264. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2000.06469.x
  13. Flores G, Abreu M, Barone CP, Bachur R, Lin H. Errors of medical interpretation and their potential clinical consequences: a comparison of professional versus ad hoc versus no interpreters. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(5):545-553. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.01.025
  14. Regenstein M, Andres E. Hospital language service programs: a closer look at translation practices. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014;25(4):2003-2018. doi:10.1353/hpu.2014.0162
  15. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97-107. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
  16. Engel KG, Heisler M, Smith DM, Robinson CH, Forman JH, Ubel PA. Patient comprehension of emergency department care and instructions: are patients aware of when they do not understand? Ann Emerg Med. 2009;53(4):454-461.e15. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.05.016
  17. Sheikh H, Brezar A, Dzwonek A, Yau L, Calder LA. Patient understanding of discharge instructions in the emergency department: do different patients need different approaches? Int J Emerg Med. 2018;11:5. doi:10.1186/s12245-018-0164-0
  18. Hoek AE, Anker SCP, van Beeck EF, Burdorf A, Rood PPM, Haagsma JA. Patient discharge instructions in the emergency department and their effects on comprehension and recall: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75(3):435-444. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.008
  19. Naik G, Ahmed H, Edwards AGK. Communicating risk to patients and the public. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62(597):213-216. doi:10.3399/bjgp12X636236
  20. Webster RK, Weinman J, Rubin GJ. People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets: a cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England. Drug Saf. 2017;40(8):743-754. doi:10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1
  21. Wiedemann PM, Boerner FU, Freudenstein F. Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0253762. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253762
  22. Eitel DR, Travers DA, Rosenau AM, Gilboy N, Wuerz RC. The Emergency Severity Index triage algorithm version 2 is reliable and valid. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(10):1070-1080. doi:10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00350-6
  23. Tanabe P, Gimbel R, Yarnold PR, Kyriacou DN, Adams JG. Reliability and validity of scores on the Emergency Severity Index version 3. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(1):59-65. doi:10.1197/j.aem.2003.06.013
  24. Mistry B, Stewart De Ramirez S, Kelen G, et al. Accuracy and reliability of emergency department triage using the Emergency Severity Index: an international multicenter assessment. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;71(5):581-587.e3. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.09.036
  25. Erimşah ME, Yaka E, Yilmaz S, Kama A, Pekdemir M. Inter-rater reliability and validity of the Ministry of Health of Turkey’s mandatory emergency triage instrument. Emerg Med Australas. 2015;27(3):210-215. doi:10.1111/1742-6723.12385
  26. Abohalaka R, Tekeli Yeşil S. Determination of perceived language barriers according to Syrian refugees visiting two hospitals in Ankara. Turk J Public Health. 2021;19(2):92-105. doi:10.20518/tjph.796038
  27. Taşdan Doğan TE, Tepe N. Healthcare interpreting in emergency departments: importance of healthcare interpreters in the communicational process of foreign patients and physicians. Mevzu. 2023;(10):461-489. doi:10.56720/mevzu.1330359
  28. Günay Köprülü S. Tıbbi terminoloji ve prospektüs (kullanma talimatı) çevirisi. Avrasya Terim Derg. 2017;5(1):11-18. https://izlik.org/JA49BG68CB
  29. Başer Z. Exploring Turkish equivalents of terms for musculoskeletal radiology: insights for a standardized terminology. J Health Sci Med. 2025;8(2):275-285. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1612372
  30. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533-544. doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y