Steven Walker1,2,3, Jane Gibbins4, Paul Paes5, Stephen Barclay6, Astrid Adams7, Madawa Chandratilake2,8, Faye Gishen1,9, Philip Lodge1,9, Bee Wee7. 1. Marie Curie Hospice, Hampstead, London, UK. 2. Centre for Medical Education, University of Dundee, UK. 3. Stgilesmedical, London, UK. 4. Cornwall Hospice Care, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro & Peninsula Medical School, UK. 5. Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust & Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. 6. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 7. Sir Michael Sobell House & University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 8. Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. 9. University College London & Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective training at medical school is essential to prepare new doctors to safely manage patients with palliative care (PC) and end of life care (EOLC) needs. The contribution of undergraduate PC course organisers is central but their collective views regarding role are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To survey attitudes of PC course organisers regarding their course, organisation, the adequacy of training provided and level of personal satisfaction. METHODS: An anonymised, multifactorial, web-based questionnaire was devised, tested, modified and then sent to lead PC course organisers at all UK medical schools. RESULTS: Data were obtained from all 30 UK medical schools. Organisers agreed/strongly agreed (=agreed) that their PC course was highly rated by students (26, 87%). 25 (83%) agreed their course 'enabled misconceptions and fears about PC, death, dying and bereavement to be addressed', 'delivered quality PC training' (23, 77%), 'fulfilled General Medical Council requirements' (19, 63%), 'prepared students well to care for patients with PC/EOLC needs' (18, 60%) and 'enabled students to visit a hospice and see the role of doctors in caring for the dying' (17, 57%). Concerns were limited capacity to accommodate students (agreed 20, 66%) and variability in teaching according to location (15, 50%). Most agreed their institution recognised PC training as important (22, 73%), they felt supported by colleagues (21, 70%) and experienced cooperation between stakeholders (20, 67%). All agreed that PC training was essential for undergraduates, while 29 (97%) supported inclusion of a hospice visit in the curriculum. 27 agreed that their role was satisfying (90%), 3 disagreed (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two-thirds of organisers were generally positive about their PC course, institution and role. A minority expressed concerns; these may reflect suboptimal PC training at their medical school and poor preparation of new doctors. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Effective training at medical school is essential to prepare new doctors to safely manage patients with palliative care (PC) and end of life care (EOLC) needs. The contribution of undergraduate PC course organisers is central but their collective views regarding role are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To survey attitudes of PC course organisers regarding their course, organisation, the adequacy of training provided and level of personal satisfaction. METHODS: An anonymised, multifactorial, web-based questionnaire was devised, tested, modified and then sent to lead PC course organisers at all UK medical schools. RESULTS: Data were obtained from all 30 UK medical schools. Organisers agreed/strongly agreed (=agreed) that their PC course was highly rated by students (26, 87%). 25 (83%) agreed their course 'enabled misconceptions and fears about PC, death, dying and bereavement to be addressed', 'delivered quality PC training' (23, 77%), 'fulfilled General Medical Council requirements' (19, 63%), 'prepared students well to care for patients with PC/EOLC needs' (18, 60%) and 'enabled students to visit a hospice and see the role of doctors in caring for the dying' (17, 57%). Concerns were limited capacity to accommodate students (agreed 20, 66%) and variability in teaching according to location (15, 50%). Most agreed their institution recognised PC training as important (22, 73%), they felt supported by colleagues (21, 70%) and experienced cooperation between stakeholders (20, 67%). All agreed that PC training was essential for undergraduates, while 29 (97%) supported inclusion of a hospice visit in the curriculum. 27 agreed that their role was satisfying (90%), 3 disagreed (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two-thirds of organisers were generally positive about their PC course, institution and role. A minority expressed concerns; these may reflect suboptimal PC training at their medical school and poor preparation of new doctors. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Communication; Education and training; Methodological research; Supportive care; Terminal care
Authors: Nicola White; Linda Jm Oostendorp; Christopher Tomlinson; Sarah Yardley; Federico Ricciardi; Hülya Gökalp; Ollie Minton; Jason W Boland; Ben Clark; Priscilla Harries; Patrick Stone Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.762