As the diversity of the European population evolves, measuring providers’ skillfulness in cross-cultural care and understanding what contextual factors may influence this is increasingly necessary. Given limited information about differences in cultural competency by provider role, we compared cross-cultural skillfulness between physicians and nurses working at a Swiss university hospital. A survey on cross-cultural care was mailed in November 2010 to front-line providers in Lausanne, Switzerland. This questionnaire included some questions from the previously validated Cross-Cultural Care Survey. We compared physicians’ and nurses’ mean composite scores and proportion of “3-good/4-very good” responses, for nine perceived skillfulness items (4-point Likert-scale) using the validated tool. We used linear regression to examine how provider role (physician vs. nurse) was associated with composite skillfulness scores, adjusting for demographics (gender, non-French dominant language), workplace (time at institution, work-unit “sensitized” to cultural-care), reported cultural-competence training, and cross-cultural care problem-awareness. Of 885 questionnaires, 368 (41.2%) returned the survey: 124 (33.6%) physicians and 244 (66.4%) nurses, reflecting institutional distribution of providers. Physicians had better mean composite scores for perceived skillfulness than nurses (2.7 vs. 2.5, p < 0.005), and significantly higher proportion of “good/very good” responses for 4/9 items. After adjusting for explanatory variables, physicians remained more likely to have higher skillfulness (β = 0.13, p = 0.05). Among all, higher skillfulness was associated with perception/awareness of problems in the following areas: inadequate cross-cultural training (β = 0.14, p = 0.01) and lack of practical experience caring for diverse populations (β = 0.11, p = 0.04). In stratified analyses among physicians alone, having French as a dominant language (β = −0.34, p < 0.005) was negatively correlated with skillfulness. Overall, there is much room for cultural competency improvement among providers. These results support the need for cross-cultural skills training with an inter-professional focus on nurses, education that attunes provider awareness to the local issues in cross-cultural care, and increased diversity efforts in the work force, particularly among physicians.

Background and aims: The occurrence rate of adverse events (AEs) related to care among hospitalized oncology patients in Switzerland remains unknown. The primary objective of this study was to describe, for the first time, the occurrence rate, type, severity of harm, and preventability of AEs related to care, reported in health records of hospitalized hematological and solid‐tumor cancer patients in three Swiss hospitals.Methods: Using an adapted version of the validated Global Trigger Tool (GTT) from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, we conducted a retrospective record review of patients discharged from oncology units over a 6‐week period during 2018. Our convenience sample included all records from adult patients (≥18 years of age), diagnosed with cancer, and hospitalized (>24 hours). Per the GTT method, two trained nurses independently assessed patient records to identify AEs using triggers, and physicians from the included units analyzed the consensus of the two nurses. Together, they assessed the severity and preventability of each AE.Results: From the sample of 224 reviewed records, we identified 661 triggers and 169 AEs in 94 of them (42%). Pain related to care was the most frequent AE (n = 29), followed by constipation (n = 17). AEs rates were 75.4 per 100 admissions and 106.6 per 1000 patient days. Most of the identified AEs (78%) caused temporary harm to the patient and required an intervention. Among AEs during hospitalization (n = 125), 76 (61%) were considered not preventable, 28 (22%) preventable, and 21 (17%) undetermined.Conclusion: About half of the hospitalized oncology patients suffered from at least one AE related to care during their hospitalization. Pain, constipation, and nosocomial infections were the most frequent AEs. It is, therefore, essential to identify AEs to guide future clinical practice initiatives to ensure patient safety.

Purpose: Cancer care is undergoing a conceptual shift with the introduction of the principles of patient-centered care to support patients’ individual needs. These needs include those related to hospitality during cancer treatments. This paper aims to provide an extension of the supportive care framework by bringing in the hospitality approach inspired by the hotel industry. Method: The “Lausanne Hospitality Model,” integrating hospitality into supportive care, was developed through an iterative process, combining expertise in supportive care and health services research, communication, and the hotel industry. Results: This conceptual paper integrates hospitality and service sciences into the supportive care framework. The “Lausanne Hospitality Model” offers new insights into the notions of cancer journey, patient experience, services, and practices that may be involved when facilitating hospitality. While most concepts used in the model are based on prior research, they have not been combined previously. The model highlights the place of hospitality in the patient’s experience within cancer services and, by extension, its role in professional practice. Conclusion: Practices involved in the delivery of cancer care need to reinforce the importance attributed to hospitality services, as they impact patients’ experiences. By integrating the hospitality perspective into healthcare delivery and supportive care, this paper addresses previously theoretically overlooked aspects that impact patients’ experiences during cancer care.

Background: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients experience distressing symptoms that can significantly impact their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We analyzed the implementation of a nurse-led consultation (NLC) and explored potential associations with symptom burden in HNC patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed routinely collected data to describe the implementation of the nurse-led interventions and the evolution of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory scores as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Patients who received routine care (n = 72) were compared with patients in the NLC group (n = 62) at a radiation oncology unit between 2017 and 2019. PROMs were measured at T0 (between simulation and the first week of radiotherapy), T1 (week 3–4), and T2 (week 5–6). Results: Screening for nutrition, smoking, oral cavity status, and capacity for swallowing/chewing, but not for pain, was applied in >80% of patients in the NLC group from T0 to T1. Education (16%) and care coordination (7%) were implemented to a lesser extent. Symptom burden increased over time with no significant differences between groups. Conclusions: The nurse-led consultation was not associated with symptom burden over time. A larger implementation study including a detailed process evaluation, larger sample size, and a focus on long-term effects is needed.