It's unethical for a speech-language pathologist to have an assistant interpret test results.

Ethics at the heart of the clinician–patient moment

Let me ask you a simple, uncomfortable question: what happens when a speech-language pathologist asks an assistant to interpret test results for a patient? On the surface, it might sound like a straightforward delegation of tasks. In reality, it touches the core of professional responsibility. This scenario isn’t just a gray area for paperwork—it’s a moment that could shape a patient’s understanding of their own health, their trust in care, and, frankly, the integrity of the field.

What the ethics codes actually care about

Most professionals in this field live by a set of standards that boil down to one core idea: the patient deserves accurate, competent, and confidential care. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) codifies this in a clear way. It isn’t a long, abstract manifesto; it’s guidance that translates into real decisions at the moment of care.

First, scope of competence. A licensed SLP is trained to interpret test results, synthesize findings, and explain what they mean for diagnosis and treatment. An assistant, while valuable for support tasks, does not share that level of clinical training or the responsibility that comes with interpreting pivotal information about a patient’s health. If you’ve ever tried to assemble a complex puzzle with a piece that doesn’t quite fit, you know the risk: the picture becomes fuzzy, or worse, wrong. That’s exactly what can happen when interpretation is offloaded to someone who hasn’t earned the necessary expertise.

Second, confidentiality and informed consent. When a clinician communicates results, they’re not just delivering data; they’re translating a clinical judgment into information a patient can act on. If an assistant handles interpretation or communication, questions arise: who is authorized to share these results? Who confirms that the patient understands them? Are the patient’s questions being answered by someone who has the appropriate clinical authority? These aren’t nitpicky details—they’re safeguards that protect patient privacy and autonomy.

Third, accuracy and responsibility. The interpretation of test results isn’t a mechanical readout. It involves weighing test limitations, considering the patient’s history, and articulating what the numbers mean in a way that supports safe, effective care. When someone without the necessary expertise steps in, the risk isn’t just a misread; it can echo through the entire care plan. A wrong interpretation can lead to misdiagnosis, inappropriate intervention, or miscommunication with the patient and their family.

Why this is more than a “they’ll figure it out later” concern

Think of the patient as someone who has already taken a big step by seeking help. They’re counting on a clear, compassionate explanation of what the results mean and what comes next. If an assistant communicates, the patient might sense a gap—like a translator who’s not fluent in the clinical language trying to make sense of a complex diagnosis. The result can be confusion, anxiety, or emotion that clouds judgment. In the worst cases, the patient might receive information that’s incomplete or incorrect, which can derail the entire treatment process.

This isn’t merely a theoretical risk. There are real-world consequences that touch both the patient’s welfare and a clinician’s professional standing. If a misinterpretation leads to an ineffective or even harmful plan, both the clinician and the team can face ethical scrutiny, legal exposure, and eroded trust. Patients talk—and word travels in clinics and communities. A single misstep can ripple outward, affecting future patients’ willingness to seek help or to trust the care team.

A closer look at the ethical underpinnings

Let’s unpack the key ideas a bit more, without getting lost in jargon:

• Scope of competence matters. Training isn’t a badge to wear; it’s a threshold. Interpreting test results requires a synthesis of knowledge about language, cognition, hearing, and the nuances of assessment tools. Passing that threshold is what justifies the clinician’s authority to interpret and explain results.

• Respect for the patient’s autonomy. Patients deserve to know what the results mean for them. They deserve to hear it from the person who knows how those results will translate into next steps. Delegating interpretation undermines the patient’s right to clear, direct information.

• Responsibility for the care plan. The clinician who interprets results bears responsibility for how that information shapes treatment decisions. When someone else interprets, the direction of care can become uncertain, or framed in ways that don’t align with the patient’s actual needs.

• Confidentiality and consent in practice. Sharing sensitive information should be tightly controlled. If an assistant is involved in delivering interpreted results, everyone involved should be clear about who is allowed to share what and when. Clear boundaries protect patients and the team.

What to look for in a well-functioning team

If you’re part of a clinical setting or just curious about how things should work, here are practical signals of ethical practice:

• Clear role delineation. There should be a defined chain of communication. The clinician responsible for interpretation is the one who communicates results to the patient, with the assistant providing support for data collection, scheduling, or documentation, not interpretation.

• Supervised collaboration when appropriate. In some environments, assistants may contribute to data gathering or preliminary notes, but the interpretive synthesis remains the clinician’s purview. Any exception should be guided by formal policies and the relevant ethical codes.

• Transparent documentation. The patient’s chart should reflect who interpreted the results, how the interpretation was reached, and what the patient was told. If questions arise later, there’s a traceable record that shows the reasoning and safeguards that were followed.

• Patient-centered communication. The clinician should check for understanding, invite questions, and tailor the explanation to the patient’s background and language. If an interpreter is needed because of language or cognitive differences, the process should involve a qualified interpreter and still keep interpretation within the clinician’s responsibility.

How this shows up in day-to-day care

You don’t need to be in a high-stakes hospital wing to feel the tug of this issue. In clinics, schools, or private settings, the moment a patient sits down with a result in hand, the ethical choices become tangible.

• A patient reads a score and asks, “What does this mean for me?” The clinician explains, using plain language, connects the dots to possible treatment paths, and checks for understanding. If the assistant were to respond, the patient might get a different picture or feel unsure about the authority behind the advice.

• An assistant helps prepare the materials and organizes the report. That’s valuable support, especially when timing is tight. The key is to keep interpretation in the clinician’s hands and use the assistant to ensure clarity, not to substitute clinical judgment.

• A team works across disciplines. When a case involves a broader team—voice, language, communication, or cognitive components—each member knows their role, while the primary interpretive responsibility stays with the licensed clinician. That alignment protects the patient and strengthens the care plan.

A quick takeaway that sticks

• The ethical fault line is not about efficiency or workflow. It’s about who bears the responsibility for interpreting and communicating test results. That task requires specialized knowledge, clinical judgment, and a direct duty to the patient.

• If an assistant handles interpretation, the patient risks receiving information that isn’t fully accurate or appropriately contextualized. That is not just a misstep; it’s a fundamental breach of professional standards.

• The right course is straightforward: keep interpretation with the licensed clinician, use assistants for supportive tasks, and maintain transparent communication with patients. When in doubt, refer back to the ethical codes and the standard operating procedures that govern patient care.

Further reflections for the curious thinker

Ethics isn’t a box to check off. It’s a living set of practices that evolve with how care is delivered. You’ll notice the same principles crop up in other areas—data handling, consent for testing, and the way results are discussed with families. The common thread is respect for the patient’s safety and dignity, plus a clear line of responsibility within the care team.

If you’re working through scenarios like this in your daily life, here are a couple of prompts to keep handy:

• Am I staying within my scope of competence? If not, who should take the interpretive lead?

• Is the patient receiving the information in a way that’s understandable and actionable?

• Are there safeguards to protect confidentiality, even in busy or emotionally charged moments?

These questions aren’t about catching someone out. They’re about preserving trust and ensuring that the care you provide truly serves the patient’s best interests.

A few practical terms worth knowing

• Scope of competence: The range of skills a clinician is trained and authorized to perform.

• Confidentiality: The obligation to protect patient information and share it only with authorized individuals.

• Informed consent: Ensuring the patient understands what will be done, why, and what the results may mean.

• Interpretation: The clinician’s synthesis of test results into an explanation that informs care decisions.

In the end, ethics isn’t a theory you file away. It’s what guides every meaningful conversation with a patient—the moment a test result becomes a turning point in their care. And when a team keeps interpretation squarely within the clinician’s lane, patients feel seen, understood, and safe. That’s not just good practice; it’s essential care.

If you’re reflecting on this topic, you’re not alone. The questions chicly surface during study moments, but their relevance extends far beyond any single test. They touch the heart of what it means to be a trusted clinician in a field that blends science with human connection. And that blend? It’s what makes this work worth doing every day.