Emerging international research suggests that in multicultural countries, such as Australia and the United States, there are significant disparities in end-of-life care planning and decision making by people of minority ethnic backgrounds compared with members of mainstream English-speaking background populations. Despite a growing interest in the profound influence of culture and ethnicity on patient choices in end-of-life care, and the limited uptake of advance care plans and advance directives by ethnic minority groups in mainstream health care contexts, there has been curiously little attention given to cross-cultural considerations in advance care planning and end-of-life care. Also overlooked are the possible implications of cross-cultural considerations for nurses, policy makers, and others at the forefront of planning and providing end-of-life care to people of diverse cultural and language backgrounds. An important aim of this article is to redress this oversight.

It has been well recognized internationally that hospitals are not as safe as they should be. In order to redress this situation, health care services around the world have turned their attention to strategically implementing robust patient safety and quality care programmes to identify circumstances that put patients at risk of harm and then acting to prevent or control those risks. Despite the progress that has been made in improving hospital safety in recent years, there is emerging evidence that patients of minority cultural and language backgrounds are disproportionately at risk of experiencing preventable adverse events while in hospital compared with mainstream patient groups. One reason for this is that patient safety programmes have tended to underestimate and understate the critical relationship that exists between culture, language, and the safety and quality of care of patients from minority racial, ethno-cultural, and language backgrounds. This article suggests that the failure to recognize the critical link between culture and language (of both the providers and recipients of health care) and patient safety stands as a 'resident pathogen' within the health care system that, if not addressed, unacceptably exposes patients from minority ethno-cultural and language backgrounds to preventable adverse events in hospital contexts. It is further suggested that in order to ensure that minority as well as majority patient interests in receiving safe and quality care are properly protected, the culture-language-patient-safety link needs to be formally recognized and the vulnerabilities of patients from minority cultural and language backgrounds explicitly identified and actively addressed in patient safety systems and processes.

Cultural safety has been promoted by its New Zealand proponents as an effective process for managing cultural risk in health care and improving the cultural responsiveness of mainstream health services when delivering care to culturally diverse populations. Its effectiveness in this regard has not, however, been comprehensively investigated. A key purpose of this study was to explore and describe what is known and understood about the notion of cultural safety and its possible application to and in Australian health care domains. Findings from the study indicate that the notion of cultural safety is conceptually problematic, poorly understood, and underresearched and, unless substantially revised, cannot be meaningfully applied to the cultural context of Australia.

No abstract