Which action is most likely to be permitted in dealing with a person with limited English proficiency?

• A. Allowing a child to interpret in an emergency.
• B. Hiring a professional interpreter only if available.
• C. Relying on the LEP individual to interpret themselves.
• D. Not providing any interpreter.

Answer: (A)

When working with someone who has limited English proficiency, the focus is on getting accurate, timely communication, especially in urgent situations where safety or rapid decisions are involved. In emergencies, there may not be time to secure a professional interpreter right away, so using a trusted family member, such as a child, to interpret can be the most workable option to ensure essential information is conveyed without delay.

This approach should be limited to conveying only the basics needed to address the immediate emergency, with safeguards in place: avoid discussing complex or sensitive details through the intermediary, keep the information simple and factual, and arrange for a professional interpreter as soon as possible. It’s also important to protect confidentiality and to avoid relying on the child for anything beyond the urgent need to communicate basic instructions or safety-critical information.

Relying on the LEP individual to interpret, or not providing any interpreter, or waiting to hire a professional interpreter only if available, would risk miscommunication, privacy concerns, and delays in care. In non-emergency situations, professional interpretation should be arranged and preferred.