The qualitative study by Landmark and his team involved Norwegian doctors and patients exploring sets of records of the therapy doctors prescribed to their patients. Through these recordings, the presence of patient-centered care and shared decision-making was analyzed using 380 video-recorded patient-doctor interactions. Of these, 18 documents became the main source of information. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The study was conducted in a Norwegian university hospital from 2007 to 2008. Video recordings and transcripts were analyzed using conversation analysis or interactional machinery (where thematic analysis includes). The findings revealed that understanding “seemed” to be ensured by both patient-centered care and shared decision-making, as represented in their actual or routine practices in the clinical area. On the other hand, potential disagreements or misunderstandings occur when doctors and patients use their non-native language or when patients' neutral responses have been interpreted by doctors as agree or disagree. The main implication of the findings of this study highlighted the language barrier as a potential cause of non-understanding/non-agreement. Furthermore, the researchers highlighted that the good patient-centered approach observed in the current clinical scenario may not be adequately sufficient, especially when doctors encounter misunderstandings/disagreements and lack of patient participation in the decision-making process. Supporting this are the origin of the native language of both participants and the misinterpretation of the patient's neutral responses (e.g. agree/disagree, instead of misunderstanding/not understanding). Although difficult and challenging, it is recommended to develop a “best practice” model regarding the concept of patient understanding. Such effective best practices must not only be in terms of conversation, but also reflected in the patient's actions or adherence to prescribed treatment. Finally, the formulation of training courses (regarding communication strategies) that aim to address patient non-responsiveness, non-understanding, disagreement or non-participation in the decision-making process is essential to resolve language barriers, understand patient needs and achieve patient-centered decision making. .Schwei and his fellow researchers said language barriers in healthcare are a worldwide concern, particularly in Europe, Australia and Canada (excluding the United States). These states have one thing in common: immigrants encountering language barriers in healthcare settings. In 2003, the Bush administration implemented a change in U.S. services for LEP (limited English proficiency) individuals. From this perspective, they aimed to describe the state of the language barrier literature inside and outside the United States (2003 to 2010) and to compare studies conducted before and after this policy change. Additionally, literature and studies outside the United States were examined to assess global trends. Literature review and cross-sectional analysis were used in their methodology. They did a two-phase review. Phase 1 included only annotated bibliographies from 2003 (starting in 1974, before Bush implemented the changes), and Phase 2 included analyzes from 2003 to 2011 (afterBush's implementation of the changes). Furthermore, the criteria and parameters set in the search and classification were similar in both phases. In their result, they found that the areas highlighted in their review included (a) barrier to access (b) comparative study (c) interpretation practices (d) outcomes (e) patient satisfaction. As expected, studies focusing on language barriers have increased (since 2003) and this could be attributed to the policy change by the Bush administration. Furthermore, in terms of perspectives in dealing with clients who have language barriers, researchers revealed that it is more focused on doctors in the United States but focused on nurses outside the United States. As a recommendation, issues related to language barriers in the healthcare delivery system worldwide need to be well documented in order to accurately identify the problem and provide evidence-based solutions. Van Rose and his colleagues studied patient safety risks caused by language barriers during hospitalization. Furthermore, they explored how language barriers were detected, reported and overcome in a Dutch hospital context. In their methodology, they combined quantitative and qualitative research approaches in a sample of 576 ethnic minority inpatients. Four urban hospitals in the Netherlands participated in the study. The medical and nursing records of the affected patients were reviewed and analysed. Additional but in-depth interviews were also conducted with healthcare workers and hospitalized patients. The results were compared with the patients' self-reported Dutch language proficiency instrument. Apart from this, language interpreter experts also helped in data analysis and interpretation. As a result, researchers have found that some hospice care situations where a language barrier is present include nursing tasks such as administering medications, pain relief, and managing fluid balance. The doctor-to-physician language barrier also exists in patient-doctor conversations regarding diagnosis, risk communication, and acute situations. More often, relatives and significant others of these patients served as interpreters. In these cases, professional interpreters were not widely used, which may mean that professional interpreters were not as effective (as expected) in helping to resolve patient safety issues related to the language barrier. These situations demonstrated that risks were possible in hospitals with patients facing language barriers. This gap could be severe when timeliness and timeliness in the provision of healthcare services aimed at meeting patients' needs are not addressed. As a general comment on this study, regardless of the competent level of knowledge and skill of the nurse, timely identification of the language barrier is critical to collecting accurate data and providing safe nursing and medical management. The documentation of these must be protected for future study references regarding policy reviews and updates and in-service training courses regarding communication, language barrier and safety-related health issues. The annotated bibliographies regarding the language barrier, in relation to the NSQHS communication for safety standards, have relevance to Australian nursing practice despite conducting this activity in healthcare settings ofthree different countries (Norway, the United States and the Netherlands respectively). Nowadays, standards on healthcare delivery systems are becoming uniform at a considerable rate. Communication plays a substantial role in unifying these standards and ensuring the safe delivery of healthcare services. The language barrier is an obvious obstacle to achieving this goal. Reference point, et. al. (2017) simply focused on clinician-initiated interactions with patients in evaluating and planning the treatment regimen. Doctors could not generate genuine participation from patients because they did not stay with them more often. Furthermore, there were doctors who assumed that the patient understood the prescribed treatment regimen simply because he or she nodded or said “uhmm” or “yes.” These responses sometimes do not translate into actions or actual patient compliance. After conversing with patients, doctors would typically go away and simply wait for developing reports or responses. On the other hand, nurses are excellent tools to bridge this gap because they remain with the patient throughout his period of confinement. Considering the trust and relationship they have built with their patients, nurses are the ones who can evaluate and empathize with them most effectively. At the same time, nurses are able to evaluate patients' actual progress and adherence to prescribed treatment even before the doctor does. As Australia's future patient safety conscious nurses, we play a crucial role in clarifying patients' misconceptions and passing them on to doctors even if they have already left the unit. This intervention further validates the patient's response, ensures full understanding of instructions, and allows plan modification (if any) to be initiated. In another study, Schwei, et. al. (2016) highlighted a considerable increase in studies on the topic of language barriers after 2003, when the Bush administration implemented access to health services among people with limited English proficiency (LEP). Migrants were among the people who benefited greatly. Currently, migrants prefer highly developed English-speaking countries. The benefits of choosing them include quality of life and access to a quality healthcare delivery system. However, the problem arises when they are not competent enough to speak and express themselves using the English language, especially when they are ill. To address this concern, nurses' ability to grasp and understand patients' health concerns regardless of the language they use is critical. . In Australia, where key cities are also cultural melting pots, the problem may arise with patients facing language barriers. Because misinterpretation of the patient's chief complaints could lead to unsafe delivery of healthcare interventions, nurses must be sufficiently competent in analyzing such complaints and not simply base their judgment on the patient's lingual statements. As a future Australian nurse, other interventions such as clinical examination (during inspection), use of contextual clues and other assessment tools/tests are helpful in clarifying confusions and refining patient statements until one can adequately identify the needs of the patient. In the last research cited, van Rosse, et. al. (2016) listed nursing interventions that may be delivered unsafely if language barriers are not promptly identified and resolved. They also mentioned the role of, 118(4), 293-302.