Project Artifact
A portfolio-safe sample showing how clinical phrases can be reviewed for patient understanding, cultural meaning, health literacy, and actionability.
This redacted gap analysis sample is part of the Khmer Clinical Communication Gap Analysis project. It demonstrates how patient-facing clinical language can be reviewed for clarity, cultural meaning, health literacy, and patient usability.
This artifact uses fictional, generalized examples only. It does not include real patient information, confidential clinical content, protected health information, or actual institutional documents.
The goal of this sample is to show that accurate clinical wording does not always guarantee patient understanding. A phrase may be technically correct but still difficult for a patient to interpret, remember, or act on. This is especially important for Khmer-speaking LEP patients who may rely on interpreters, translated materials, family support, or brief clinical explanations.
Sample row 1
Possible communication risk: The phrase may be too vague. Patients may not know what "normal" or "as tolerated" means.
Patient-friendly explanation direction: Explain specific examples, such as light walking, rest, avoiding heavy lifting if instructed, and calling the clinic if pain increases.
Instructional design note: Use icons for rest, walking, lifting, and calling the clinic. Add teach-back prompt: "What activities will you avoid today?"
Sample row 2
Possible communication risk: Patients may not understand what counts as a clear liquid or may confuse it with any light-colored drink.
Patient-friendly explanation direction: Provide examples of allowed and not allowed drinks using pictures and plain language.
Instructional design note: Use a visual "yes/no" chart with culturally familiar examples when possible.
Sample row 3
Possible communication risk: Patients may not know the difference between expected discomfort and warning signs.
Patient-friendly explanation direction: Separate "usually normal" symptoms from "call the clinic" and "call 911 or local emergency services" symptoms.
Instructional design note: Use green/yellow/red grouping or calm/caution/urgent sections with icons and large text.
Sample row 4
Possible communication risk: Patients may not understand sedation, may underestimate impairment, or may not plan transportation.
Patient-friendly explanation direction: Explain that the medicine can make them sleepy or unsafe to drive, and they need a responsible ride home if required by the clinic.
Instructional design note: Use a ride-home icon, reminder card, and teach-back question: "Who will take you home?"
Sample row 5
Possible communication risk: Consent may be seen as just signing a form, not as an opportunity to understand, ask questions, and make an informed choice.
Patient-friendly explanation direction: Explain that consent means the patient has the right to understand the procedure, benefits, risks, alternatives, and questions before agreeing.
Instructional design note: Use a short "Questions You Can Ask" section and interpreter-supported discussion prompts.
These examples are intentionally generalized and redacted. They are not copied from a patient record, institution-specific form, or confidential encounter. They are used only to demonstrate a review method for portfolio purposes.
This artifact connects language access to instructional design by treating clinical communication as a learning problem. The question is not only whether the words are translated, but whether the patient can understand, remember, and use the information safely.
This gap analysis approach may support the Khmer GI Patient Education Design Framework & Learning Toolkit by helping review patient handouts, multimedia scripts, teach-back prompts, and procedure instructions before they are developed into patient-facing materials.