BackgroundComplementary medicine (CM) is utilized in a growing number of academic centers despite the debate concerning its value, risks and benefits. Healthcare professionals often feel uncomfortable discussing CM with patients, and little is known about their sources of knowledge in the field of CM.ObjectiveTo assess healthcare professionals’ sources of knowledge and attitude toward CM in an academic hospital.Design and participantsThe cross-sectional web-based survey took place from October to December 2013. A total of 4,925 healthcare professionals working at Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland, were invited to answer the questionnaire.Main measuresFactors influencing healthcare professionals’ opinion toward CM, knowledge and communication about CM.Key resultsThe questionnaire was answered by 1,247 healthcare professionals. The three key factors influencing professionals’ opinion toward CM were personal experience, clinical experience and evidence demonstrating the physiological mechanism of CM. Personal experience was more associated with nurses’ and midwives’ opinion compared to physicians’ (80.8% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.08, [95% CI: 2.35–4.05], P<0.001 and 85.3% vs 57.1%, OR = 3.83, [95% CI: 1.95–7.53], P<0.001, respectively) as well as with professionals trained in CM compared to non-trained professionals (86.0% vs 73.2%, OR = 2.60, [95% CI: 1.92–3.53], P<0.001). Physicians relied more on randomized controlled clinical trials compared to nurses (81.3% vs 62.9%, OR = 0.43, [95% CI: 0.33–0.57], P<0.001). A majority of the respondents (82.5%) agreed that they lacked knowledge about CM and 65.0% noted that it was the patient who initially started the discussion about CM.ConclusionsDifferent professionals used different strategies to forge opinions regarding CM: physicians relied more on scientific evidence, while nurses and midwives were more influenced by personal experience. Regardless of preferred information source, most respondents did not feel prepared to address patient questions regarding CM. Enhancing interprofessional education opportunities is an important strategy to help providers become empowered to discuss CM with patients. This in turn will help patients making informed decisions in their healthcare.

No abstract

IntroductionIn the Swiss canton of Valais, the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 were detected on 28 February 2020. Discharged patients’ and their family caregivers’ experiences in relation to safety, quality of care, trust and communication during the COVID-19 hospitalisation period remain unexplored. The study aims to collect the patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) survey of patients discharged during the COVID-19 pandemic and their family caregivers.Methods and analysisPatients aged ≥18 years, hospitalised between 28 February and 11 May 2020 and then discharged home, plus their family caregivers will be invited to complete a self-administrated questionnaire made up of 14 closed questions and 1 open-ended question. The questionnaire will include items on the patient’s hospital trajectory and assess the interpersonal trust placed in nurses and physicians based on Krajewska-Kułak et al’s Trust in Nurse Scale and Anderson et al’s Trust in Physician Scale. Participants’ perceived stress will be assessed using Cohen et al’s Perceived Stress Scale. Feelings of safety will be examined based on Dryhurst et al’s questionnaire on Risk Perception During Pandemics. After ethical clearance, data will be collected using a postal paper questionnaire and via an online web link. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be computed, and the open question will undergo a qualitative thematic analysis. We will analyse perceptions of the different hospital trajectories experienced by patients undergoing surgery with and without a SARS-CoV-2 infection.Ethics and disseminationThe Human Research Ethics Committee of Vaud (2020-02025) authorised this study. Gathering experiences and learning about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the social determinants of health among discharged patients and families fit in well with the Triple Aim framework and the PREMs survey. The study will formulate recommendations to support interventions in the face of the second wave of COVID-19 pandemic and their effects on patients’ and their family caregivers’ experiences.

Attitudes des médecins généralistes envers les médecines complémentaires et besoins de formation. Résultats d'une enquête suisseAttitudes of general practitioners toward complementary medicine and training needs assessment. Results of a Swiss surveySelon l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, les médecines complémentaires (MC) « se rapportent à un vaste ensemble de pratiques de soins de santé qui n'appartiennent pas à la tradition du pays et ne sont pas intégrées dans le système de santé dominant [1] ». Comme dans d'autres pays occidentaux, les MC sont aujourd'hui très utilisées en Suisse. D'après l'enquête suisse sur la santé 2007, 31 % de la population du canton de Vaud y a fait appel au moins une fois au cours de l'année précédant l'analyse [2] . Wolf et al. [3] ont mis en évidence une prévalence d'utilisation en Suisse de 49 ± 22 %. Ces médecines sont largement recherchées par les patients en complément à la médecine conventionnelle, bien que 77 % d'entre eux ne disent pas à leur médecin généraliste qu'ils y recourent [4] . Par ailleurs, Déglon-Fischer et al. [5] ont montré que la plupart des médecins généralistes sont ouverts à ce sujet et que les MC jouent un rôle important dans la prise en charge des patients.Dans de nombreux pays, le besoin d'un enseignement relatif aux MC a été reconnu [6] . Actuellement en Suisse, les universités ne proposent pas de formation en MC mais la plupart des facultés de médecine ont commencé à sensibiliser les étudiants aux phénomènes d'utilisation des MC et de noncommunication de leur usage [7] .