When Words Fail: ICU Nurses' Experiences Caring for Patients With Limited English Proficiency in the United States

Abstract

AimsTo explore the lived experiences of intensive care nurses caring for patients with limited English proficiency.DesignA hermeneutic, interpretive phenomenological design was used.MethodsSemi‐structured interviews were conducted with intensive care nurses recruited through purposive sampling. Data collection included Qualtrics screening surveys and semi‐structured Zoom interviews. The research team, comprising linguistically diverse faculty and undergraduate research assistants, employed reflexivity techniques to minimise bias and enhance interpretive rigour. Data were analysed via inductive analysis using the hermeneutic circle.ResultsFive main themes emerged organically from the data: Complications of Care Relating to Verbal Communication Challenges. Benefits and Barriers of Nursing Informatics in Linguistic Care. The Universal Language: Nursing Effort Builds Trust. The Ripple Effect: Chronological Considerations for Patient Care. Moving Forward: Where Do We Go From Here? Based on these findings, a four‐phase model was developed to guide individual and system‐level interventions to reduce nurse moral distress and improve language equity in critical care.ConclusionLanguage barriers in the intensive care unit hinder communication, increase stress for patients and nurses, and impact care quality. While nurses' efforts to bridge these gaps are valued, systemic changes (such as expanded interpreter availability and improved cultural safety training) are necessary to support culturally, linguistically, and medically appropriate care.Implications for the Profession and/or Patient CareFindings highlight the need for increased institutional support, additional resources for night‐shift staff, and the integration of cultural humility education into intensive care training. The Limited English Proficiency Moral Distress Action Cycle for Critical Care Nursing, developed from this study, offers a flexible framework to guide the implementation of these improvements and reduce nurse moral distress. Future research should explore interventions to promote cultural and linguistic competence in multilingual patient populations.ImpactQ: What problem did the study address?A: The nurse‐identified clinical, ethical, and workflow risks created when interpreters or translation tools are inadequate for critical care.Q: What were the main findings?A: Language barriers jeopardise teaching, informed consent, and symptom reporting. Video and phone interpreters or translation apps are vital but are often scarce, unreliable, or impersonal, particularly during night shifts. Nurses bridge these gaps by building trust through empathy, non‐verbal communication, and learning key phrases. Yet, effective care for patients with limited English proficiency requires extra time, increasing workloads and fuelling moral distress related to language‐discordant care. Nurses consistently called for 24/7 interpreter coverage; more reliable devices and cultural humility training must be implemented system‐wide.Q: Where and on whom will the research have an impact?A: Findings can guide nurses, managers, leaders, and administrators to improve both language concordant and discordant nursing care and train nurses in cultural and linguistic competencies for a multilingual patient population. Ultimately, these efforts have been shown to improve the quality, outcomes, and cost‐effectiveness of patient care. The study also identifies moral‐distress triggers and introduces the Limited English Proficiency Moral Distress Action Cycle (LEP‐MDAC). This model is proposed for use in other high‐acuity settings worldwide that seek to provide language‐concordant or language‐discordant care effectively.Reporting MethodSRQR.Patient or Public ContributionNone.