Orest Weber

Beyond the 'dyad': a qualitative re-evaluation of the changing clinical consultation

Objective To identify characteristics of consultations that do not conform to the traditionally understood communication ‘dyad’, in order to highlight implications for medical education and develop a reflective ‘toolkit’ for use by medical practitioners and educators in the analysis of consultations. Design A series of interdisciplinary research workshops spanning 12 months explored the social impact of globalisation and computerisation on the clinical consultation, focusing specifically on contemporary challenges to the clinician–patient dyad. Researchers presented detailed case studies of consultations, taken from their recent research projects. Drawing on concepts from applied sociolinguistics, further analysis of selected case studies prompted the identification of key emergent themes. Setting University departments in the UK and Switzerland. Participants Six researchers with backgrounds in medicine, applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and medical education. One workshop was also attended by PhD students conducting research on healthcare interactions. Results The contemporary consultation is characterised by a multiplicity of voices. Incorporation of additional voices in the consultation creates new forms of order (and disorder) in the interaction. The roles ‘clinician’ and ‘patient’ are blurred as they become increasingly distributed between different participants. These new consultation arrangements make new demands on clinicians, which lie beyond the scope of most educational programmes for clinical communication. Conclusions The consultation is changing. Traditional consultation models that assume a ‘dyadic’ consultation do not adequately incorporate the realities of many contemporary consultations. A paradox emerges between the need to manage consultations in a ‘super-diverse’ multilingual society, while also attending to increasing requirements for standardised protocol-driven approaches to care prompted by computer use. The tension between standardisation and flexibility requires addressing in educational contexts. Drawing on concepts from applied sociolinguistics and the findings of these research observations, the authors offer a reflective ‘toolkit’ of questions to ask of the consultation in the context of enquiry-based learning.

Cultural competency of health-care providers in a Swiss University Hospital: self-assessed cross-cultural skillfulness in a cross-sectional study

BackgroundAs 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsOverall, 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.

Cross-Cultural Communication in Oncology: Challenges and Training Interests.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To survey oncology nurses and oncologists about difficulties in taking care of culturally and linguistically diverse patients and about interests in cross-cultural training.
. DESIGN Descriptive, cross-sectional.
. SETTING Web-based survey.
. SAMPLE 108 oncology nurses and 44 oncologists. 
. METHODS 31-item questionnaire derived from preexisting surveys in the United States and Switzerland.
. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES Self-rated difficulties in taking care of culturally and linguistically diverse patients and self-rated interests in cross-cultural training.
. FINDINGS All respondents reported communication difficulties in encounters with culturally and linguistically diverse patients. Respondents considered the absence of written materials in other languages, absence of a shared common language with patients, and sensitive subjects (e.g., end of life, sexuality) to be particularly problematic. Respondents also expressed a high level of interest in all aspects of cross-cultural training (task-oriented skills, background knowledge, reflexivity, and attitudes). Nurses perceived several difficulties related to care of migrants as more problematic than physicians did and were more interested in all aspects of cross-cultural training. 
. CONCLUSIONS The need for cross-cultural training is high among oncology clinicians, particularly among nurses.
. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING The results reported in the current study may help nurses in decision-making positions and educators in introducing elements of cross-cultural education into oncology curricula for nurses. Cross-cultural training should be offered to oncology nurses.

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

Phenomenon: Assuring quality medical care for all persons requires that healthcare providers understand how sociocultural factors affect a patients health beliefs/behaviors. Switzerlands 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 hospitals “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 (β = 0.21, p = .01), training on the history/culture of a specific group (β = 0.25, p = .03), and awareness regarding (a) a lack of practical experience caring for diverse populations (β = 0.25, p = .004) and (b) inadequate cross-cultural training (β = 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 (β = −0.26, p = .01; β = −0.22, p = .01). Insights: The state of cross-cultural care preparedness among Lausannes 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.