Division of Palliative Care, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Fam Med. 2023 Oct;55(9):574-581. doi: 10.22454/FamMed.2023.678786. Epub 2023 Jul 10.
Few family physicians treating patients with life-limiting illness report regularly initiating advance care planning (ACP) conversations about illness understanding, values, or care preferences. To better understand how family medicine training contributes to this gap in clinical care, we asked how family medicine residents learn to engage in ACP in the workplace.
We coded semistructured interviews with family medicine residents (n=9), reflective memos (n=9), and autoethnographic field notes (n=37) using a constructivist-grounded theory approach. We next used the constant comparative method of grounded theory to develop two composite narratives describing participants' experiences that we then member-checked with participants.
We identified six core categories of social process to describe how participants were taught to engage in advance care planning. These social processes included previously unidentified barriers to ACP that were specific to their role as learners. These barriers appeared to lead to cultural avoidance of prognosis, conflation of ACP and goals of care (GOC) conversations, and deferral of difficult conversations to nonprimary care settings.
Family medicine educators should consider developing interventions such as flexible clinic schedules, dedicated ACP time, deliberate observed practice, and structured teaching to address potential barriers identified in this exploratory research. Family medicine leaders may wish to consider directly teaching residents and preceptors about crucial differences between ACP and GOC discussions. Shifting curricular focus toward eliciting values and illness understanding during ACP could help resolve a cultural avoidance of prognosis that limits family medicine residents' attempts to engage in ACP.
很少有治疗绝症患者的家庭医生定期就疾病理解、价值观或护理偏好进行预先护理计划(ACP)对话。为了更好地了解家庭医学培训如何导致临床护理中的这一差距,我们询问了家庭医学住院医师如何在工作场所学习进行 ACP。
我们使用建构主义扎根理论方法对家庭医学住院医师(n=9)的半结构化访谈、反思性备忘录(n=9)和自传体田野笔记(n=37)进行了编码。接下来,我们使用扎根理论的恒定比较方法来描述参与者的经验,开发了两个综合叙述,然后与参与者一起进行成员检查。
我们确定了六个核心的社会过程类别,以描述参与者如何被教导进行预先护理计划。这些社会过程包括以前未被识别的与学习者角色相关的 ACP 障碍。这些障碍似乎导致了对预后的文化回避、ACP 和关怀目标(GOC)对话的混淆,以及将困难对话推迟到非初级保健环境。
家庭医学教育者应考虑制定干预措施,如灵活的诊所时间表、专门的 ACP 时间、精心设计的观察实践和结构化教学,以解决这项探索性研究中确定的潜在障碍。家庭医学领导者可能希望考虑直接向住院医师和导师教授 ACP 和 GOC 讨论之间的关键区别。将课程重点转移到在 ACP 中引出价值观和疾病理解,可能有助于解决对预后的文化回避,这限制了家庭医学住院医师进行 ACP 的尝试。