Chadd K Kraus1, Marna R Greenberg2, Daniel E Ray3, Sydney Morss Dy4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, USA. Electronic address: chaddkraus@gmail.com. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Section of Palliative Medicine and Hospice, Lehigh Valley Health Network, Allentown, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Duffey Pain/Palliative Care Program, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Emergency medicine (EM) residents perceive palliative care (PC) skills as important and want training, yet there is a general lack of formal PC training in EM residency programs. A clearer definition of the PC educational needs of EM trainees is a research priority. OBJECTIVES: To assess PC competency education in EM residency programs. METHODS: This was a mixed-mode survey of residency program directors, associate program directors, and assistant program directors at accredited EM residency programs, evaluating four educational domains: 1) importance of specific competencies for senior EM residents, 2) senior resident skills in PC competencies, 3) effectiveness of educational methods, and 4) barriers to training. RESULTS: Response rate was 50% from more than 100 residency programs. Most respondents (64%) identified PC competencies as important for residents to learn, and 59% reported that they teach7 PC skills in their residency program. In Domains 1 and 2, crucial conversations, management of pain, and management of the imminently dying had the highest scores for importance and residents' skill. In Domain 3, bedside teaching, mentoring from hospice and palliative medicine faculty, and case-based simulation were the most effective educational methods. In Domain 4, lack of PC expertise among faculty and lack of interest by faculty and residents were the greatest barriers. There were differences between competency importance and senior resident skill level for management of the dying child, withdrawal/withholding of nonbeneficial interventions, and ethical/legal issues. CONCLUSION: There are specific barriers and opportunities for PC competency training and gaps in resident skill level. Specifically, there are discrepancies in competency importance and residency skill in the management of the dying child, nonbeneficial interventions, and ethical and legal issues that could be a focus for educational interventions in PC competency training in EM residencies.
CONTEXT: Emergency medicine (EM) residents perceive palliative care (PC) skills as important and want training, yet there is a general lack of formal PC training in EM residency programs. A clearer definition of the PC educational needs of EM trainees is a research priority. OBJECTIVES: To assess PC competency education in EM residency programs. METHODS: This was a mixed-mode survey of residency program directors, associate program directors, and assistant program directors at accredited EM residency programs, evaluating four educational domains: 1) importance of specific competencies for senior EM residents, 2) senior resident skills in PC competencies, 3) effectiveness of educational methods, and 4) barriers to training. RESULTS: Response rate was 50% from more than 100 residency programs. Most respondents (64%) identified PC competencies as important for residents to learn, and 59% reported that they teach7 PC skills in their residency program. In Domains 1 and 2, crucial conversations, management of pain, and management of the imminently dying had the highest scores for importance and residents' skill. In Domain 3, bedside teaching, mentoring from hospice and palliative medicine faculty, and case-based simulation were the most effective educational methods. In Domain 4, lack of PC expertise among faculty and lack of interest by faculty and residents were the greatest barriers. There were differences between competency importance and senior resident skill level for management of the dying child, withdrawal/withholding of nonbeneficial interventions, and ethical/legal issues. CONCLUSION: There are specific barriers and opportunities for PC competency training and gaps in resident skill level. Specifically, there are discrepancies in competency importance and residency skill in the management of the dying child, nonbeneficial interventions, and ethical and legal issues that could be a focus for educational interventions in PC competency training in EM residencies.
Authors: Rahul M Rege; Kelee Peyton; Sarah E Pajka; Corita R Grudzen; Mark J Conroy; Lauren T Southerland Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Devika Nair; Maie El-Sourady; Kemberlee Bonnet; David G Schlundt; Joseph B Fanning; Mohana B Karlekar Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Nicole M Dubosh; Jaime Jordan; Lalena M Yarris; Edward Ullman; Joshua Kornegay; Daniel Runde; Amy Miller Juve; Jonathan Fisher Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2018-12-14
Authors: Audrey Tan; Mark Durbin; Frank R Chung; Ada L Rubin; Allison M Cuthel; Jordan A McQuilkin; Aram S Modrek; Catherine Jamin; Nicholas Gavin; Devin Mann; Jordan L Swartz; Jonathan S Austrian; Paul A Testa; Jacob D Hill; Corita R Grudzen Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Laura E Walker; M Fernanda Bellolio; Claudia C Dobler; Ian G Hargraves; Robert J Pignolo; Kevin Shaw; Jacob J Strand; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Michael E Wilson; Erik P Hess Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2021-11-13
Authors: Jan Shoenberger; Sangeeta Lamba; Rebecca Goett; Paul DeSandre; Kate Aberger; Suzanne Bigelow; Todd Brandtman; Garrett K Chan; Robert Zalenski; David Wang; Mark Rosenberg; Karen Jubanyik Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2018-03-22
Authors: Anne Kamphausen; Hanna Roese; Karin Oechsle; Malte Issleib; Christian Zöllner; Carsten Bokemeyer; Anneke Ullrich Journal: Emerg Med Int Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 1.112