Speed can get you noticed. Accuracy is what earns trust.

Everyone’s producing content faster, but that doesn’t always mean it’s clearer. In this article, I share where things often go wrong in medical communication and how to keep your materials accurate, consistent, and credible under pressure.

A few years ago, speed was everything. If your team could get a manuscript, brochure, or local adaptation out faster than others, you were ahead.

That hasn’t changed. In fact, speed is key now more than ever. But it’s no longer what sets you apart.

Between AI tools, template libraries, and increasingly compressed internal review cycles, almost every organization can move fast now.

What really makes the difference today is precision, accuracy, and trust, because only clear communication holds up once the rush is over.

The illusion of faster content

Let’s be honest: most content today starts with a draft generated somewhere between an SME, a writer, and an AI tool.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. AI can save time, support research, and even help structure first drafts.

The problem comes when we equate faster with better. The real bottleneck in medical communication isn’t production. It’s accuracy, alignment, and readability.

You’ve probably seen this happen:

• Drafts that technically say the right things, but in ways no healthcare professional would actually say or trust.

• Translations that are “linguistically correct” yet sound foreign to the local audience.

• Review rounds where no one agrees on terminology or tone.

None of this is new, but automation amplifies it. When content moves faster through the pipeline, there’s less time to pause, align, and ask:

Does this version really communicate what we mean, and in a way that will be understood?

Where things start to get unclear and how to prevent it

In my experience, the biggest communication issues usually appear in three places: source development, review, and localization.

1. Source development: strong English versions save time later

A well-structured, consistent, and audience-focused English version saves countless hours later.

When the source text is vague, overloaded, or written for “everyone,” translators and local reviewers spend extra time fixing issues that could have been prevented.

Ask yourself:

• Is this source version ready to be localized, or are we still refining messages as we go?

• Would a translator have enough context to make accurate linguistic and cultural choices?

A clear, stable source is the foundation of good multilingual communication. Without it, even the best translators are left guessing.

2. Review: focus on evidence, not preference

Many review rounds focus on wording preferences, not meaning, accuracy, or readability. The best review systems now combine linguistic checks with medical and compliance awareness:

• Are claims aligned with approved labeling?

• Is the level of certainty appropriate, especially for patient materials?

• Is the text readable for the intended audience, not just correct?

This approach shifts the review from fixing text to ensuring purpose, whether that purpose is to inform, educate, or support decision-making.

3. Localization: translating intent, not just words

Translating isn’t just about changing words. It’s about carrying intent, tone, and trust across languages.

A few practical steps that make localization smoother:

• Share glossaries and explain why certain terms are preferred.

• Provide reference materials such as images, context, and SME notes.

• Define a clear review workflow so linguistic feedback doesn’t contradict medical review.

• Treat translation memory and AI tools as assistants, not decision-makers.

When teams do this, local versions stop being afterthoughts and start becoming communication assets in their own right.

What effective teams are doing differently

Across pharma, medtech, and healthcare communication, the teams producing the most reliable, consistent content are not necessarily the ones with the biggest budgets. They are the ones with strong governance and processes built around precision and consistency.

These teams:

• Keep smaller, smarter content pipelines with clear responsibilities.

• Maintain living glossaries and style guides that evolve with each launch or update.

• Use AI strategically, for speed and analysis, but never as a substitute for medical judgment or linguistic validation.

• Build feedback loops between medical writing, translation, and review, not silos.

They understand that the goal isn’t more content. It’s more consistent understanding.

A quick self-check before your next project

Before your next MedComms campaign, publication, or patient brochure goes out, ask your team:

• Are we building from a version we trust? Not just the latest draft on the shared drive, but the one that’s been medically, linguistically, and legally approved.

• Is our terminology aligned? Brand, generic, and mechanism-of-action terms should be consistent across all materials and markets.

• Does it sound natural in every language we publish in? If the Portuguese or Spanish version reads like a translation, trust drops instantly.

• Are we reviewing for accuracy and comprehension, not preference? Edits should enhance understanding, not simply reflect individual style choices.

• Do we have a documented process? Clear QA checklists, version control, and review workflows prevent most errors before they reach the reader.

In a market saturated with fast, automated content, your readers, whether clinicians, regulators, or patients, are not looking for more. They’re looking for information that is accurate, consistent, and trustworthy.

That’s what makes them stop, read, and act. And while no algorithm can guarantee that, a team of qualified experts can.

---

Ana Sofia is an English to Portuguese medical translator and writer working with Life Sciences companies, Contract Research Organizations, and Medical Communication agencies. She has experience translating and writing content for clinical trials, medical devices, regulatory submissions, education and marketing campaigns, and scientific publications.