Lisa Jane Brighton1, Jonathan Koffman2, Amy Hawkins3, Christine McDonald2, Suzanne O'Brien2, Vicky Robinson2, Shaheen A Khan4, Rob George5, Irene J Higginson2, Lucy Ellen Selman6. 1. Department of Palliative Care, Policy, and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK. Electronic address: lisa.brighton@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Palliative Care, Policy, and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK. 3. Phyllis Tuckwell Hospice, Farnham, UK; Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley, UK. 4. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; St Christopher's Hospice, London, UK. 6. Department of Palliative Care, Policy, and Rehabilitation, King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, UK; Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Abstract
CONTEXT: End-of-life care (EoLC) communication skills training for generalist palliative care providers is recommended in policy guidance globally. Although many training programs now exist, there has been no comprehensive evidence synthesis to inform future training delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise how EoLC communication skills training interventions for generalist palliative care providers are developed, delivered, evaluated, and reported. METHODS: Systematic review. Ten electronic databases (inception to December 2015) and five relevant journals (January 2004 to December 2015) were searched. Studies testing the effectiveness of EoLC communication skills training for generalists were included. Two independent authors assessed study quality. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis are used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: From 11,441 unique records, 170 reports were identified (157 published, 13 unpublished), representing 160 evaluation studies of 153 training interventions. Of published papers, eight were of low quality, 108 medium, and 41 high. Few interventions were developed with service user involvement (n = 7), and most were taught using a mixture of didactics (n = 123), reflection and discussion (n = 105), and role play (n = 86). Evaluation designs were weak: <30% were controlled, <15% randomized participants. Over half (n = 85) relied on staff self-reported outcomes to assess effectiveness, and 49% did not cite psychometrically validated measures. Key information (e.g., training duration, participant flow) was poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a proliferation of EoLC communication skills training interventions in the literature, evidence is limited by poor reporting and weak methodology. Based on our findings, we present a CONSORT statement supplement to improve future reporting and encourage more rigorous testing.
CONTEXT: End-of-life care (EoLC) communication skills training for generalist palliative care providers is recommended in policy guidance globally. Although many training programs now exist, there has been no comprehensive evidence synthesis to inform future training delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise how EoLC communication skills training interventions for generalist palliative care providers are developed, delivered, evaluated, and reported. METHODS: Systematic review. Ten electronic databases (inception to December 2015) and five relevant journals (January 2004 to December 2015) were searched. Studies testing the effectiveness of EoLC communication skills training for generalists were included. Two independent authors assessed study quality. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis are used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: From 11,441 unique records, 170 reports were identified (157 published, 13 unpublished), representing 160 evaluation studies of 153 training interventions. Of published papers, eight were of low quality, 108 medium, and 41 high. Few interventions were developed with service user involvement (n = 7), and most were taught using a mixture of didactics (n = 123), reflection and discussion (n = 105), and role play (n = 86). Evaluation designs were weak: <30% were controlled, <15% randomized participants. Over half (n = 85) relied on staff self-reported outcomes to assess effectiveness, and 49% did not cite psychometrically validated measures. Key information (e.g., training duration, participant flow) was poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a proliferation of EoLC communication skills training interventions in the literature, evidence is limited by poor reporting and weak methodology. Based on our findings, we present a CONSORT statement supplement to improve future reporting and encourage more rigorous testing.
Authors: Madison B Smith; Tamara G R Macieira; Michael D Bumbach; Susan J Garbutt; Sandra W Citty; Anita Stephen; Margaret Ansell; Toni L Glover; Gail Keenan Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Sriram Yennurajalingam; Charles E Amos; John Weru; Edwina Beryl V N D Addo Opare-Lokko; Joseph Anthony Arthur; Kristy Nguyen; Olaitan Soyannwo; Runcie C W Chidebe; Janet L Williams; Zhanni Lu; Ellen Baker; Sanjeev Arora; Eduardo Bruera; Suresh Reddy Journal: J Glob Oncol Date: 2019-07
Authors: Olivia Brookes; Celia Brown; Carolyn Tarrant; Julian Archer; Duncan Buckley; Lisa Marie Buckley; Ian Clement; Felicity Evison; Fang Gao Smith; Chris Gibbins; Emma Hayton; Jennifer Jones; Richard Lilford; Randeep Mullhi; Greg Packer; Gavin Perkins; Jonathan Shelton; Catherine Snelson; Paul Sullivan; Ivo Vlaev; Daniel Wolstenholme; Stephen E Wright; Julian Bion Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lisa Jane Brighton; Lucy Ellen Selman; Nicholas Gough; J J Nadicksbernd; Katherine Bristowe; Catherine Millington-Sanders; Jonathan Koffman Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 3.568