[Non-clinical community clerkships]. / Coschap in de wijk.

We developed an innovative one-week community clerkship for all fifth-year medical students at Utrecht UMC. Students follow this clerkship in a variety of community care and welfare organizations (eg social community teams or organizations that support psychiatric patients or migrants). Learning goals: students get acquainted with organizations and professionals within the social domain, students experience the social context of healthcare, and they reflect on the meaning of these experiences for their work as a physician. The reflection papers show that students gain insight in social determinants of health. Learning about clients in their everyday live is appreciated by students, as well as getting insight in the social domain. However students find it difficult to relate these experiences with the medical context. Participating social organizations value the clerkship because they feel the need to train future doctors in the social domain.

Ethnic differences in colon cancer care in the Netherlands: a nationwide registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in colon cancer (CC) care were shown in the United States, but results are not directly applicable to European countries due to fundamental healthcare system differences. This is the first study addressing ethnic differences in treatment and survival for CC in the Netherlands. METHODS: Data of 101,882 patients diagnosed with CC in 1996-2011 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and linked to databases from Statistics Netherlands. Ethnic differences in lymph node (LN) evaluation, anastomotic leakage and adjuvant chemotherapy were analysed using stepwise logistic regression models. Stepwise Cox regression was used to examine the influence of ethnic differences in adjuvant chemotherapy on 5-year all-cause and colorectal cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Adequate LN evaluation was significantly more likely for patients from 'other Western' countries than for the Dutch (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01-1.16). 'Other Western' patients had a significantly higher risk of anastomotic leakage after resection (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.05-1.47). Patients of Moroccan origin were significantly less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.13-0.59). Ethnic differences were not fully explained by differences in socioeconomic and hospital-related characteristics. The higher 5-year all-cause mortality of Moroccan patients (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.03-2.61) was statistically explained by differences in adjuvant chemotherapy receipt. CONCLUSION: These results suggest the presence of ethnic inequalities in CC care in the Netherlands. We recommend further analysis of the role of comorbidity, communication in patient-provider interaction and patients' health literacy when looking at ethnic differences in treatment for CC.

How do medical specialists value their own intercultural communication behaviour? A reflective practice study.

BACKGROUND: Intercultural communication behaviour of doctors with patients requires specific intercultural communication skills, which do not seem structurally implemented in medical education. It is unclear what motivates doctors to apply intercultural communication skills. We investigated how purposefully medical specialists think they practise intercultural communication and how they reflect on their own communication behaviour. METHODS: Using reflective practice, 17 medical specialists independently watched two fragments of videotapes of their own outpatient consultations: one with a native patient and one with a non-native patient. They were asked to reflect on their own communication and on challenges they experience in intercultural communication. The interviews were open coded and analysed using thematic network analysis. RESULTS: The participants experienced only little differences in their communication with native and non-native patients. They mainly mentioned generic communication skills, such as listening and checking if the patient understood. Many participants experienced their communication with non-native patients positively. The participants mentioned critical incidences of intercultural communication: language barriers, cultural differences, the presence of an interpreter, the role of the family and the atmosphere. CONCLUSION: Despite extensive experience in intercultural communication, the participants of this study noticed hardly any differences between their own communication behaviour with native and non-native patients. This could mean that they are unaware that consultations with non-native patients might cause them to communicate differently than with native patients. The reason for this could be that medical specialists lack the skills to reflect on the process of the communication. The participants focused on their generic communication skills rather than on specific intercultural communication skills, which could either indicate their lack of awareness, or demonstrate that practicing generic communication is more important than applying specific intercultural communication. They mentioned well-known critical incidences of ICC: language barriers, cultural differences, the presence of an interpreter, the role of the family and the atmosphere. Nevertheless, they showed a remarkably enthusiastic attitude overall was noteworthy. A strategy to make doctors more aware of their intercultural communication behaviour could be a combination of experiential learning and ICC training, for example a module with reflective practice.