Karen S Ogle1, Brian Mavis, Clayton Thomason. 1. Department of Family Practice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA. karen.ogle@ht.msu.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: A statewide survey of postgraduate medical training programs was conducted to determine the current status of training related to end-of-life (EOL) care and hospice care training. METHODS: A mail survey of 275 program directors was conducted with a response rate of 70%. The questionnaire focused on information about training in EOL care and hospice care: specific content, required and elective experiences, teaching formats, and program directors' ratings of the perceived adequacy of training. This study received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. RESULTS: Less than half (46%) of the residency programs reported any formal training in EOL care, and less than one third (31%) reported training in hospice care. A majority of programs with EOL and/or hospice training required it for all residents. Of the programs with required hospice training, only half included a clinical component; fewer programs with EOL training reported a clinical component. Most program directors rated their programs as adequate or excellent in terms of EOL and hospice care, whether they had formal training or not. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the survey demonstrate considerable variability in training with respect to hospice and EOL care. Training through direct clinical experience was infrequently reported. There has been little formal adoption of published curricula in this area. The high level of adequacy in the rating of training by program directors contrasts with relative lack of reported curriculum content and implementation, suggesting that improvements in EOL care training will be slow to come if left in the hands of program directors.
PURPOSE: A statewide survey of postgraduate medical training programs was conducted to determine the current status of training related to end-of-life (EOL) care and hospice care training. METHODS: A mail survey of 275 program directors was conducted with a response rate of 70%. The questionnaire focused on information about training in EOL care and hospice care: specific content, required and elective experiences, teaching formats, and program directors' ratings of the perceived adequacy of training. This study received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. RESULTS: Less than half (46%) of the residency programs reported any formal training in EOL care, and less than one third (31%) reported training in hospice care. A majority of programs with EOL and/or hospice training required it for all residents. Of the programs with required hospice training, only half included a clinical component; fewer programs with EOL training reported a clinical component. Most program directors rated their programs as adequate or excellent in terms of EOL and hospice care, whether they had formal training or not. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the survey demonstrate considerable variability in training with respect to hospice and EOL care. Training through direct clinical experience was infrequently reported. There has been little formal adoption of published curricula in this area. The high level of adequacy in the rating of training by program directors contrasts with relative lack of reported curriculum content and implementation, suggesting that improvements in EOL care training will be slow to come if left in the hands of program directors.
Authors: Douglas D Ross; Deborah W Shpritz; Susan D Wolfsthal; Ann B Zimrin; Timothy J Keay; Hong-Bin Fang; Carl A Schuetz; Laura M Stapleton; David E Weissman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Krista L Harrison; Jackelyn Y Boyden; Virginia B Kalish; J Cameron Muir; Suzanne Richardson; Stephen R Connor Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 2.947