Introducing cross-cultural education in palliative care: focus groups with experts on practical strategies.

BACKGROUND: The linguistic and cultural diversity found in European societies creates specific challenges to palliative care clinicians. Patients' heterogeneous habits, beliefs and social situations, and in many cases language barriers, add complexity to clinicians' work. Cross-cultural teaching helps palliative care specialists deal with issues that arise from such diversity. This study aimed to provide interested educators and decision makers with ideas for how to implement cross-cultural training in palliative care. METHODS: We conducted four focus groups in French- and Italian-speaking Switzerland. All groups consisted of a mix of experts in palliative care and/or cross-cultural teaching. The interdisciplinary research team submitted the data for thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Focus-group participants saw a clear need for courses addressing cross-cultural issues in end-of-life care, including in medical disciplines outside of palliative care (e.g. geriatrics, oncology, intensive care). We found that these courses should be embedded in existing training offerings and should appear at all stages of curricula for end-of-life specialists. Two trends emerged related to course content. One focuses on clinicians' acquisition of cultural expertise and tools allowing them to deal with complex situations on their own; the other stresses the importance of clinicians' reflections and learning to collaborate with other professionals in complex situations. These trends evoke recent debates in the literature: the quest for expertise and tools is related to traditional twentieth century work on cross-cultural competence, whereas reflection and collaboration are central to more recent research that promotes cultural sensitivity and humility in clinicians. CONCLUSION: This study offers new insights into cross-cultural courses in palliative and end-of-life care. Basic knowledge on culture in medicine, variable practices related to death and dying, communication techniques, self-reflection on cultural references and aptitude for interprofessional collaboration are central to preparing clinicians in end-of-life settings to work with linguistically and culturally diverse patients.

Is the Front Line Prepared for the Changing Faces of Patients? Predictors of Cross-Cultural Preparedness Among Clinical Nurses and Resident Physicians in Lausanne, Switzerland.

UNLABELLED: PHENOMENON: Assuring quality medical care for all persons requires that healthcare providers understand how sociocultural factors affect a patient's health beliefs/behaviors. Switzerland's changing demographics highlight the importance of provider cross-cultural preparedness for all patients-especially those at risk for social/health precarity. We evaluated healthcare provider cross-cultural preparedness for commonly encountered vulnerable patient profiles. APPROACH: A survey on cross-cultural care was mailed to Lausanne University hospital's "front-line healthcare providers": clinical nurses and resident physicians at our institution. Preparedness items asked "How prepared do you feel to care for … ?" (referring to example patient profiles) on an ascending 5-point Likert scale. We examined proportions of "4 - well/5 - very well prepared" and the mean composite score for preparedness. We used linear regression to examine the adjusted effect of demographics, work context, cultural-competence training, and cross-cultural care problem awareness, on preparedness. FINDINGS: Of 885 questionnaires, 368 (41.2%) were returned: 124 (33.6%) physicians and 244 (66.4%) nurses. Mean preparedness composite was 3.30 (SD = 0.70), with the lowest proportion of healthcare providers feeling prepared for patients "whose religious beliefs affect treatment" (22%). After adjustment, working in a sensitized department (ß = 0.21, p = .01), training on the history/culture of a specific group (ß = 0.25, p = .03), and awareness regarding (a) a lack of practical experience caring for diverse populations (ß = 0.25, p = .004) and (b) inadequate cross-cultural training (ß = 0.18, p = .04) were associated with higher preparedness. Speaking French as a dominant language and physician role (vs. nurse) were negatively associated with preparedness (ß = -0.26, p = .01; ß = -0.22, p = .01). INSIGHTS: The state of cross-cultural care preparedness among Lausanne's front-line healthcare providers leaves room for improvement. Our study points toward institutional strategies to improve preparedness: notably, making sure departments are sensitized to cross-cultural care resources and increasing provider diversity to reflect the changing Swiss demographic.