Godfrey Sarah, Steiner Jill M, Damluji Abdulla A, Sampath Ramya, Chuzi Sarah, Warraich Haider, Krishnaswami Ashok, Bernacki Gwen, Goodlin Sarah, Josephson Richard, Mulrow John, Doherty Caroline
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
J Card Fail. 2024 Dec;30(12):1583-1591. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.03.008. Epub 2024 Apr 13.
Palliative care (PC) is an essential component of high-quality care for people with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, little is known about the current state of PC education in CVD training, including attitudes toward integration of PC into training and implementation of PC by the program's leadership.
We developed a nationwide, cross-sectional survey that queried education approaches, perspectives and barriers to PC education in general CVD fellowship training. The survey was distributed to 392 members of the American College of Cardiology Program Director (PD) listserv, representing 290 general CVD fellowships between 1/2023 and 4/2023. We performed descriptive and ꭕ analyses of survey data.
Of the program's representatives, 56 completed the survey (response rate = 19.3%). Respondents identified themselves as current PDs (89%), associate PDs (8.9%) or former PDs (1.8%), representing a diverse range of program sizes and types and regions of the country. Respondents reported the use of informal bedside teaching (88%), formal didactics (59%), online or self-paced modules (13%), in-person simulation (11%), and clinical rotations (16%) to teach PC content. Most programs covered PC topics at least annually, although there was variability by topic. We found no associations between program demographics and type or frequency of PC education. Most respondents reported dissatisfaction with the quantity (62%) or quality (59%) of the PC education provided. Barriers to PC education included an overabundance of other content to cover (36%) and perceived lack of fellow (20%) or faculty (18%) interest. Comments demonstrated the importance of PC education in fellowship, the lack of a requirement to provide PC education, difficulty in covering all topics, and suggestions of how PC skills should be taught.
In a national survey of CVD educational leadership concerning approaches to PC education in CVD training, respondents highlighted both challenges to implementation of formal PC curricula in cardiology training and opportunities for comprehensive PC education.
姑息治疗(PC)是心血管疾病(CVD)患者高质量护理的重要组成部分。然而,对于CVD培训中PC教育的现状知之甚少,包括对将PC纳入培训的态度以及项目负责人对PC的实施情况。
我们开展了一项全国性的横断面调查,询问了一般CVD专科培训中PC教育的方法、观点和障碍。该调查于2023年1月至2023年4月分发给美国心脏病学会项目主任(PD)邮件列表中的392名成员,代表290个一般CVD专科培训项目。我们对调查数据进行了描述性和相关性分析。
在项目代表中,56人完成了调查(回复率 = 19.3%)。受访者将自己确定为现任PD(89%)、助理PD(8.9%)或前任PD(1.8%),代表了不同规模、类型和地区的项目。受访者报告使用非正式床边教学(88%)、正式教学(59%)、在线或自主学习模块(13%)、现场模拟(11%)和临床轮转(16%)来教授PC内容。大多数项目至少每年涵盖PC主题,尽管不同主题存在差异。我们发现项目人口统计学特征与PC教育的类型或频率之间没有关联。大多数受访者对所提供的PC教育的数量(62%)或质量(59%)表示不满。PC教育的障碍包括要涵盖的其他内容过多(36%)以及认为学员(20%)或教员(18%)缺乏兴趣。评论表明了PC教育在专科培训中的重要性、缺乏提供PC教育的要求、难以涵盖所有主题以及关于应如何教授PC技能的建议。
在一项针对CVD教育领导者关于CVD培训中PC教育方法的全国性调查中,受访者强调了在心脏病学培训中实施正式PC课程的挑战以及全面PC教育的机会。