Dataset Information

A meaning-centered spiritual care training program for hospice palliative care teams in South Korea: development and preliminary evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Spirituality is a fundamental, intrinsic aspect of human beings and should be a core component of quality palliative care. There is an urgent need to train hospice palliative care teams (HPCTs) to enhance their ability to provide spiritual care. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a meaning-centered, spiritual care training program (McSCTP) for HPCTs (McSCTP-HPCTs).

Methods

The modules' content was informed by Viktor Frankl's meaning-centered logotherapy with its emphasis on spiritual resources, as well as the spiritual care model of the Interprofessional Spiritual Care Education Curriculum (ISPEC). Following development, we conducted a pilot test with four nurses. We used the results to inform the final program, which we tested in an intervention involving 13 members of HPCTs. We took measurements using self-administered questionnaires at three points before and after the intervention. Using descriptive statistics, the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test, we analyzed the participants' demographic and career-related characteristics, as well as the degree of variance between three outcome variables: compassion fatigue (CF), spiritual care competencies (SCCs), and spiritual care therapeutics (SCT).

Results

We divided the McSCTP-HPCTs into five modules. Module I: The HPCTs' SCC evaluation, understanding the major concepts of spiritual care and logotherapy; Modules II-IV: Meaning-centered interventions (MCIs) related to spiritual needs (existential, relational, and transcendental/religious); Module V: The process of meaning-centered spiritual care. The preliminary evaluation revealed significant differences in all three outcome variables at the posttest point (CF, p = 0.037; SCCs, p = 0.005; SCT, p = 0.002). At the four-week follow-up test point, we only found statistical significance with the SCCs (p = 0.006).

Conclusions

The McSCTP-HPCTs is suitable for use in clinical settings and provides evidence for assessing the SCCs of HPCTs.

SUBMITTER: Kang KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7871309 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveDespite growing interest in individualizing care, routine dialysis processes, including the interdisciplinary plan of care, often fail to account for patient-identified priorities. To better align dialysis care with patient priorities and improve care planning experiences, we implemented a person-centered care plan program at a single clinic. We also sought to gain insight into key implementation considerations and areas for program improvement.Study design6-month quality improvement project with research substudy.Setting & participants49 hemodialysis patients and 14 care team members at a North Carolina dialysis clinic.Quality improvement activitiesImplementation of My Dialysis Plan, a person-centered care plan program.OutcomesParticipant perspectives and care plan meeting characteristics (quality improvement); pre- to postprogram change in patient-reported autonomy support, patient-centeredness of care, and dialysis care individualization (research).Analytical approachWe used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide implementation and evaluation. We conducted pre-, intra-, and post-project interviews with clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) to identify implementation barriers, facilitators, and perceptions. We compared pre- and post-project care plan meeting content and patient-reported outcome survey scores.ResultsWe conducted 54 care plans with 49 patients. Overall, care teams successfully used My Dialysis Plan to elicit and link patient priorities to actionable aspects of dialysis care. Participants identified interdisciplinary team commitment, accountability, and the structured yet flexible meeting approach as key implementation elements. Throughout the project, stakeholder input guided program modifications (eg, implementation practices and resources) to better meet clinic needs, but follow-up on care plan-identified action items remained challenging. Among the 28 substudy participants, there was no difference in pre- to post-project patient-reported outcome survey scores.LimitationsSingle clinic implementation.ConclusionsMy Dialysis Plan has the potential to enhance dialysis care individualization and care plan experiences. Evaluation of program impact on patient-reported and clinical outcomes is needed.