1 / 23

Dr. Jose Pereira Alberta Cancer Foundation Professor of Palliative Medicine University of Calgary

Rural Palliative Care (PC) Education: Results of a Hybrid Course with Face-to-Face and Online Learning. Dr. Jose Pereira Alberta Cancer Foundation Professor of Palliative Medicine University of Calgary. Goals of the Project.

zev
Download Presentation

Dr. Jose Pereira Alberta Cancer Foundation Professor of Palliative Medicine University of Calgary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Rural Palliative Care (PC) Education: Results of a Hybrid Course with Face-to-Face and Online Learning. Dr. Jose Pereira Alberta Cancer Foundation Professor of Palliative Medicine University of Calgary

  2. Goals of the Project • Instil residents with competencies required to care for terminally ill patients. • Develop evaluation tools • knowledge, attitudes and skills. • Explore residents’ responses to the inclusion in the curriculum of: • Spirituality, hope, suffering, self-awareness, use of narrative, humanities to engage affective domain of learning

  3. Course Design Movies & arts Course intro Technology intro. Communication Pain/Symptoms Interactive, schemes & case-based • Hybrid model: F2F & online OSCEs (x4) &F2F workshops 1½ days Online 10 weeks Communication Decision-making Ethics Pain/Symptoms F2F workshops & OSCEs (x4): 1½ days

  4. Course Design Online Case Discussions Thematic Discussions Ask the Expert Assignments (E-mail) 4 modules Each 2-weeks long 10 weeks Small group asynchronous discussions

  5. Evaluation Framework • Knowledge • Pre vs Post-course knowledge test • 20-items, multiple choice questionnaire • Based on blueprint; face validity • Varying Bloom’s hierarchies • Attitudes • Surveys • Self-perceived changes in clinical comfort levels • 22 items, 5-point Likert-like scale (1=not at all comfortable, 5=very comfortable) • Inclusion of topics in learning • Focus Groups • Skills • 4 OSCEs • Course participation • Course itself • Surveys & Focus Groups

  6. Results: Knowledge • N=15 • Internal Reliability: Cronbach’s : 0.5 • (Need to increase # of items to 30 to increase reliability to 0.67) • Significant improvement in knowledge • Repeated measures test: F=19.8, p=0.001 • Cohen’s effect size: 0.77 • Pre-course mean (SD): 12 (2.6) • Post-course mean (SD): 16 (1.9)

  7. Self-perceived clinical comfort levels: Pre vs Post course • N=15 • Significant improvement in comfort levels • Repeated measures test: F=75.3, p<0.001 • Cohen’s effect size: 0.92 • Pre-course mean (SD): 59.7 (10.9) • Post-course mean (SD): 82.8 (4.7)

  8. Self-perceived comfort levels • Pre versus Post Course • Little change in communication • Large change in pain & symptom management But • At post course when asked “compared to when you first started…” • Large change in communication as well • Role of OSCEs for self-assessment

  9. Focus Groups Results • Ambivalence to including psychosocial care in case studies. • “..talk about one topic at a time; not mix; separate the psychosocial from the clinical” • “Would have liked to see more clinical stuff” [online] • “I don’t agree; the patient is a whole person, you cannot separate”

  10. Focus Groups Results • Ambivalence to spirituality in care • “Physicians should address spirituality when treating palliative patients…one cannot separate the physical and the spirit.”..but no-one has taught us how to do this • “For now, we want to learn more about fundamentals of medicine rather than spirituality”

  11. How should we introduce spirituality? • Perhaps in disguise

  12. Possible Roles of OSCEs Needs Assessment Education tool Formative evaluation Summative evaluation

  13. 4 OSCEs in this Course • Developed from real cases • 3 domains in each OSCE: physical issues, psychosocial issues & communication. (clinical decision-making & communication) • Reflect major competencies • 58 y/o university professor with breast cancer. Presents with cancer pain. • Cancer pain management. Address fears of opioids, explore illness experience. • Young 32 y/o with advanced gastric cancer, nausea & vomiting from upper GI obstruction.Young children. • Manage psychological distress, being in presence of suffering, managing nausea & vomiting. • 60 Y/o man with severe shortness of breath from advanced ALS. Accompanied by wife. • Explore fears, advanced planning & discuss code status, home care needs, manage dyspnea. • Office visit by home care nurse • Interdisciplinary collaboration, manage delirium, inability to swallow & hypercalcemia in home setting

  14. Steps in developing OSCEs • Identify competencies & blueprint • Develop OSCEs (as a team) • Review OSCEs with content experts & potential learners (sample from target group of learners.) • Prepare score sheets • Checklist & Global Rating Scale. • Train actors & actresses • Prepare logistics for implementation. • Test OSCEs with actors/actresses • Do OSCEs (videotape) • Rehearse scoring with scorers • Preliminary reliability testing • Scoring • Modifying OSCEs.

  15. Checklist vs Global Rating Scale? • Opted for checklist & global rating • Literature • Global rating scales scored by experts showed higher inter-station reliability, better construct & concurrent validity than did checklists. • The use of checklists prior to using a global ratings scale did not improve the reliability or validity of the global rating. Regehr G, et al. Acad Med 1998;73:993-997

  16. Scale Design 1. Separate score sheet for each OSCE 2. Scale consists of two subscales: • Performance of Skill • Degree to which skill performed • Items rated on a 3-point scale • Criterion-based scoring [Doig et al; Thompson et al] • Omitted, performed but not competently, performed competently

  17. Results • Inter-rater Reliability based on 4 raters • Cronbach’s Alpha • Performance of Skill: .77 - .88 • Degree of Skill: .72 - .88 • Overall Scale: .87 to .92 • Further inter-rater and intra-rater reliability and generalizability being assessed.

  18. What residents thought of OSCEs • Very useful learning tools. • Helped them identify their learning needs and provide them with practice. • Would recommend it to other residents

  19. Overall Course Evaluation • Would recommend it to future residents • Want practical approaches, not theoretical discussions • Want more mentoring • Some ambivalence about: • Online learning component • Thematic discussions • Psychospiritual issues

  20. Strengths & limitations • Limitations • Small numbers limit generalisability

  21. Conclusions • There is a culture that does not value integrated care- need to address this in the undergraduate curriculum • Evaluation methods require careful thought and expertise

More Related