Aranibar, Marco A. Bracamonte

Abstract Rationale Clear and accurate communication is essential in critical care, yet patients with non-English language preferences (NELP) often face limited access to professional interpreters. Although machine translation has been explored in healthcare, most studies have focused on written translation. Their use in real-time, two-way interpretation specifically for high-stakes ICU conversations remains largely unexamined. To bridge this gap, we developed AI-TransLATE (AI-enhanced Transition to Language-Agnostic Transcultural Engagement), a voice-to-voice multilingual interpretation tool designed to support real-time interactions in critical care. Following successful initial validation, we evaluated clinicians’ perceptions of its usability in simulated ICU encounters and compared its performance with commercially available AI tools, including Gemini and ChatGPT. Methods We developed three standardized ICU role-play scenarios focused on shared decision-making regarding ECMO, tracheostomy, and comfort care, designed to encourage natural, unscripted dialogue. Clinicians were asked to use the AI translation tools during these encounters in Spanish, Chinese, or Arabic, while a bilingual research team member acted as the patient’s family member. After each simulation, participants completed a post-session survey evaluating communication quality, satisfaction (using a 5-point Likert scale), and usability through the System Usability Scale (SUS). Results Eighteen clinicians participated, including residents, fellows, and attending physicians with an average of 3.6 ± 1.2 years of postgraduate experience. Fifty-four post-simulation surveys were completed across Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish languages comparing AI-TransLATE, ChatGPT, and Google Gemini. Participants rated the simulation as realistic across all cases (ECMO = 3.94 ± 0.66; Tracheostomy = 4.22 ± 0.43; Comfort Care = 4.06 ± 0.42; p = 0.32). Satisfaction was highest for AI-TransLATE (4.11 ± 0.68) and ChatGPT (4.00 ± 0.69) but lowest for Gemini (2.06 ± 1.00; p < 0.001). Willingness to use in real life followed the same trend. (AI-TransLATE = 4.00 ± 0.69, ChatGPT = 3.89 ± 0.96, Gemini = 2.00 ± 1.03 (p < 0.001)). SUS scores supported these findings (AI-TransLATE = 71.25 ± 13.35; ChatGPT = 72.22 ± 15.57; Gemini = 40.28 ± 21.30; p < 0.001), corresponding to good usability for AI-TransLATE and ChatGPT and poor usability for Gemini. Clinicians mentioned interruptions, uneven translation flow, and difficulty judging accuracy, but appreciated it when the AI-TransLATE conveyed tone and intonation, enabling smoother, more natural communication. Conclusion Overall, AI-TransLATE and ChatGPT demonstrated strong usability and satisfaction, showing promise as clinical communication tools; however, further validation in real-world ICU settings is warranted, and data privacy and confidentiality remain important considerations. This abstract is funded by: Critical care research committee mayo clinic

Abstract Effective communication in the intensive care unit (ICU) is essential, particularly for patients with non-English language preference, yet timely access to professional interpreters remains limited. While artificial intelligence (AI)-based translation tools have been explored in outpatient and nonacute care settings, studies evaluating their use in acute care, environments such as the ICU remain limited. To address this gap, we developed AI-TransLATE (AI-enhanced Transition to Language-Agnostic Transcultural Engagement), a speech-based translation tool designed for multilingual communication in critical care settings. This study aimed to assess the interpretation quality of AI-TransLATE across four languages—Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Turkish—using scripted ICU scenarios. We created ICU communication scripts and recorded bilingual research team members simulating clinical interactions. Two independent bilingual evaluators assessed interpretation quality using a 5-point Likert scale across fluency, adequacy, meaning preservation, and severity of errors. Clarity and cultural appropriateness were also rated. Percentage agreement was used to assess interrater agreement. AI-TransLATE achieved acceptable composite scores (≥16/20) across all languages. Spanish and Turkish performed consistently well; Chinese and Arabic showed variability due to omissions and terminology errors. AI-TransLATE shows promise as a clinical communication tool, but further evaluation in real-world, unscripted ICU settings is needed.