Prior research, mostly from North America, suggests improved clinical outcomes for female patients treated by female physicians. Whether these findings apply in European healthcare systems and how underlying processes of care vary by sex remains unclear. This study aimed to assess whether in-hospital outcomes and processes of care differ by patient sex, physician sex or their interaction, in a European setting.

Retrospective cohort study.

General internal medicine division of a Swiss tertiary teaching hospital.

Adult inpatients (≥18 years) hospitalised between 2014 and 2024 and their primarily responsible physicians, classified by administrative sex (male vs female). The cohort included 20 094 hospitalisations (44.6% female patients) and 216 physicians (48.1% female).

Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission, as well as processes of care (resource use, advance care planning and cardiovascular low-value care). Multilevel mixed-effects regression models adjusted for patient and physician characteristics.

Female patients had lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87), lower hospitalisation costs (–4.26%, 95% CI –6.08% to –2.41%), fewer diagnostic and therapeutic procedures (–6.44%, 95% CI –9.76% to –3.01%), fewer blood tests (–8.95%, 95% CI –12.98% to –4.73%) and were less likely to have resuscitation orders (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.71) or intensive care unit transfer orders (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73). They were, however, more likely to receive non-indicated antihypertensive treatment (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.51). No significant differences were observed by physician sex or patient–physician sex interaction.

In a European tertiary teaching hospital with universal healthcare coverage, in-hospital outcomes and processes of care did not differ by physician sex or patient–physician sex interaction. Nevertheless, disparities by patient sex persisted, underscoring the need for sex-disaggregated quality monitoring and sex-sensitive medical training.

Despite efforts to implement lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and other sexual and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) inclusive practices to address health disparities faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, factors that facilitate the uptake of these practices remain underexplored. Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), this study explores nurse leaders’ perspectives across diverse US healthcare systems regarding the facilitators and barriers to implementing LGBTQ+ inclusive practices.

We used a qualitative descriptive design. Semistructured interviews guided by the CFIR framework were conducted from October to December 2023. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Diverse healthcare settings (eg, acute care hospitals and public health centres) across the USA.

We purposively recruited 21 nurse leaders, such as chief nursing officers or chief nurse executives, who oversee nursing strategy, staffing and quality across their organisations.

Consistent with prior frontline-focused studies, nurse leaders confirmed key inner setting and individuals facilitators (eg, LGBTQ+ specific training, electronic health record adaptation, visible executive engagement). Our findings add system-level detail from an executive perspective. Leaders identified actionable levers such as establishing LGBTQ+ clinical and social services, allocating protected time and budgets, and deploying dedicated implementation teams. We also identified a cross-cutting barrier: a reactive, crisis-driven organisational culture that hinders proactive inclusion efforts. Beyond the organisation, sociopolitical and legal climates shaped readiness and resourcing, with anti-LGBTQ+ laws influencing inclusion initiatives. Finally, nurse leaders highlighted the need for rigorous multilevel evaluation (eg, patient, staff, institution) and noted that common surveys inadequately capture LGBTQ+ inclusion, revealing measurement gaps that impede continuous improvement.

Implementing LGBTQ+ inclusive practices in healthcare is essential for optimal health outcomes and social justice. Understanding the context of implementation at multiple levels is crucial. Future research should focus on testing implementation strategies, developing inclusive healthcare surveys, and supporting the role of organisational culture and leadership in promoting LGBTQ+ inclusivity.

Physicians are increasingly interested in part-time employment. However, the impact of part-time work on efficiency and quality of care of inpatients is unknown.

To investigate the association between part-time clinical work of hospitalists in General Internal Medicine (GIM) and resource utilisation and short-term patient outcomes.

Retrospective study.

GIM wards of 3 Swiss teaching hospitals.

Each inpatient was categorised as having received care mainly (>50%) by part-time or full-time hospitalists. Part-time clinical work was defined as employment of

Primary outcome was length of hospital stay, secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, in-hospital mortality, hospitalisation cost and time to completion of the discharge letter. We assessed the association between both groups and outcomes using generalised estimating equations, clustering for individual patients and adjusting for patient and hospitalist characteristics.

There was no statistically relevant difference in length of stay in cases cared for mainly by part-time (mean 7.3 days, 95% CI 7.1 to 7.6) compared with full-time hospitalists (mean 7.6 days, 95% CI 7.3 to 7.8; p=0.18). Time to completion of the discharge letter was longer in the part-time (mean 11.4 days, 95% CI 11.0 to 11.8) versus full-time group (mean 10.9 days, 95% CI 10.6 to 11.2, p=0.049). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the other outcomes.

We found no evidence that part-time clinical work of hospitalists negatively affects resource utilisation and short-term patient outcomes compared with full-time work.