Dataset Information

Evaluation of an advance care planning training program for practice professionals in Japan incorporating shared decision making skills training: a prospective study of a curricular intervention.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We developed a novel training program for health care professionals that incorporated shared decision making (SDM) skills training into an advance care planning (ACP) training course, the first in Japan. This study aimed to assess the training program's impact on health care professionals' knowledge, skill, attitudes, and confidence to initiate ACP.

Methods

Using the novel Japanese educational program, we evaluated the effect of 8-month programs conducted eight community training sites of professionals who can practice ACP in a local area in Aichi Prefecture (the Aichi ACP Project). SDM skills training was provided during the workshops conducted in the ACP training course, and the participants' satisfaction and understanding of the training were assessed. After the completion of two workshops, information on SDM skill results from the training and submitted assignments were collected anonymously from the training sites.

Result

A total of 404 participants completed all education programs. After the first workshop, at least 95% of trainees stated that they were satisfied with the training and that it was useful for ACP practice. The evaluation of the results between the first and second workshops indicated improvement in SDM skills on some items of the SDM measures. In the second workshop, at least 90% of participants submitted implementation reports, and after the second workshop, a survey of confidence in ACP practice was administered, with responses indicating improvement. There were high levels of interest in education related to the ACP practices of oneself and others.

Conclusions

This educational program can be an effective for developing professionals who can practice ACP with SDM skills.

SUBMITTER: Goto Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9315089 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Due to the gradual loss of function, it is crucial for persons with dementia to discuss advance care planning in due course. However, nursing home staff, residents and their families feel uncomfortable to start this type of conversation, resulting in unknown (care) preferences. 'We DECide optimized' will provide tools to nursing home staff for discussing advance care planning. The primary objective is to enhance the level of shared decision-making in advance care planning conversations. We hypothesize that the training will enhance the perception of the importance, competence and frequency in which participants engage in advance care planning conversations. The secondary objective is to assess barriers and facilitators in the implementation of advance care planning policies at the ward level. METHODS:'We DECide optimized' will consist of two four-hour workshops and a homework assignment between sessions. Training components will include information on advance care planning and shared decision-making, role-play exercises and group discussions on implementation barriers at the ward level. Participating wards will receive supporting materials to stimulate residents and their families to initiate conversations. The study uses a cluster randomized controlled design, with 65 Flemish nursing home wards taking part (311 staff members). Data will be collected through a pretest-posttest model, with measurements up to 9?months after training. The RE-AIM framework will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation. Quantitative and qualitative data at the clinical, organizational and resident level will be collected. DISCUSSION:This study describes a hands-on, in-depth and multi-level training approach to improve shared decision-making in advance care planning conversations. By providing tools to ward staff, engaging the management and informing residents and their families, 'We DECide optimized' aims to decrease evidence-based barriers and to provide all stakeholders with incentives to engage in conversations about (care) preferences in an informative and participatory manner.

Project description:BackgroundPalliative care (PC) is a strongly emerging discipline worldwide. Despite efforts to integrate this important topic in the medical curriculum in Belgium, still little time is spent on PC and its implementation during theoretical and practical training.Materials & methodsWe had two cohorts of second master's year MD students at the University of Antwerp complete a survey compromising a custom-built PC knowledge test and a self-confidence assessment of communicative skills used in end-of-life conversations. We evaluated students' self-confidence regarding end-of-life-conversations before and after a PC training program. We also explored whether the PC classes enabled the students to adequately reflect on factors that might influence end-of-life conversations with an open-end question about the potential implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on advance care planning (ACP) conversations. Finally, we compared the results of the respondents having enjoyed face-to-face training (cohort 1) with those having received online training only (cohort 2, COVID-19 pandemic).ResultsAlthough the respondents in both cohorts indicated that the overall curriculum did not pay enough attention to PC training, their average scores on the theoretical questions were good. Feeling confident about their communicative skills in general, they indicated to be less confident when it came to communications concerning PC and ACP in particular. The COVID-19 pandemic was initially equally deemed to impede and facilitate ACP and end-of-life conversations, but after the ACP training class more respondents saw the pandemic as an opportunity to broach end-of-life issues. Finally, we found no differences in scores between online and regular classroom teaching.ConclusionStudents experience a lack of confidence in communication skills used in end-of-life conversations and ACP. To help improve skills and competencies in conducting end-of-life conversations, it is recommended to have medical students assess PC/ACP training programs regularly and to modify the curriculum and course content based on these outcomes and current developments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Training has been found effective in improving healthcare professionals' knowledge, confidence, and skills in conducting advance care planning (ACP). However, the association between training and its actual practice in the clinical setting has not been well demonstrated. To fill this gap, this paper examines the association between their readiness for ACP, in terms of perceived relevancy of ACP with their clinical work, attitudes toward and confidence and willingness to perform it, based on the Theory Planned Behavior and relevant training experiences. METHODS:An online survey about experiences about ACP of healthcare professionals, including physicians, nurses, social workers, and allied healthcare professionals, currently working in hospital and community care in Hong Kong was conducted. RESULTS:Of 250 respondents, approximately half (52.0%) had received ACP-related training. Those with relevant training reported significantly more positive in the perceived clinical relevance, willingness, and confidence in conducting ACP and different levels of agreement with 19 out of the 25 statements in a questionnaire about attitudes toward ACP than those without (ps???0.001-0.05). Respondents who received training only in a didactic format reported a significantly lower level of confidence in conducting ACP than did others who received a blended mode of learning (p?=?0.012). Notwithstanding significant differences between respondents with and without relevant training, respondents generally acknowledged their roles in initiating conversations and appreciated ACP in preventing decisional conflict in surrogate decision-making regardless of their training experience. CONCLUSIONS:This paper revealed the association between training and higher level of readiness toward ACP among healthcare professionals. The findings showed that training is a predictor of their readiness for ACP in terms of perceived relevancy, willingness, and confidence. Those who had received training were less likely to consider commonly reported barriers such as time constraints, cultural taboos, and avoidance among patients and family members as hindrances to ACP implementation.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making provides an approach to discuss advance care planning in a participative and informed manner, embodying the principles of person-centered care. A number of guided approaches to achieve shared decision-making already exist, such as the three-talk model. However, it is uncertain whether daily practice methods in nursing home wards for persons with dementia comply with the underpinnings of this model. It is also uncertain whether professionals consider shared decision-making to be important in this context, and whether they perceive themselves sufficiently competent to practice this approach frequently.MethodsThe study has a cross-sectional design, with 65 wards (46 Belgian nursing homes) participating in the study. We compared nursing home professionals' and residents' perspectives on the level of shared decision-making during advance care planning conversations with ratings from external raters. Residents and professionals rated the level of shared decision-making by means of a questionnaire, which included the topic of the conversation. External raters assessed audio recordings of the conversations. Professionals filled in an additional self-report questionnaire on the importance of shared decision-making, their competence in practicing the approach, and with what frequency.ResultsAt ward level, professionals and residents rated the average achieved level of shared decision-making 71.53/100 (σ = 16.09) and 81.11/100 (σ = 19.18) respectively. Meanwhile, raters gave average scores of 26.97/100 (σ = 10.45). Only 23.8% of residents referred to advance care planning as the topic of the conversation. Professionals considered shared decision-making to be important (x̄=4.48/5, σ = 0.26). This result contrasted significantly with the frequency (x̄=3.48/5, σ = 0.51) and competence (x̄=3.76/5, σ = 0.27) with which these skills were practiced (P < 0.001).ConclusionsResidents with dementia are grateful when involved in discussing their care, but find it difficult to report what is discussed during these conversations. Receiving more information about advance care planning could provide them with the knowledge needed to prepare for such a conversation. External raters observe a discrepancy between the three-talk model and daily practice methods. Training programs should focus on providing professionals with better knowledge of and skills for shared decision-making. They should also promote team-based collaboration to increase the level of person-centered care in nursing home wards for persons with dementia.

Project description:BackgroundIn the Netherlands, it is customary to discuss directives regarding resuscitation, intubation, and ICU-admission with patients and/or their relatives upon hospital-admission. The outcome of this discussion is documented in a code status. Ideally, these advance care planning (ACP)-related decisions are made by a patient (and/or their relatives) and a professional together in a shared decision-making (SDM) process, to improve patient satisfaction and prevent undesired care. Given the bad outcomes in older COVID-19 patients, it is particularly important to discuss the code status upon admission. This study aims to describe the practice of SDM regarding code status during the COVID-pandemic. Specific aims were to find out to what extend patients took part in this decision-making process and whether all key elements of SDM for a shared decision were documented in medical reports.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we included COVID-19 patients aged 70 years and older, admitted to two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Data about code status and the decision-making process were extracted from electronic healthcare records.ResultsCode status was documented for 274 of 275 included patients. Patient participation in the decision-making process was described in 48%. In 19% all key elements of shared decision-making have been described. Key elements of SDM were defined as the presence of a completed code status form, the presence of clinical notes showing that both patient's wishes and values and the opinion of the healthcare professional about the predicted outcome was taken into consideration and clinical notes of a patient-healthcare professional interaction during the admission.ConclusionOur results show that a proper SDM process regarding code status is possible, even in hectic times like the COVID-19-pandemic. However, shared decision-making was not common practice in older patients with COVID-19 regarding code status (an ACP-related decision) in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only in 19% of the patients, all key elements of SDM regarding code status were described.

Project description:Although research suggests that patients prefer a shared decision making (SDM) experience when making healthcare decisions, clinicians do not routinely implement SDM into their practice and training programs are needed. Using a novel case-based strategy, we developed and pilot tested an online educational program to promote shared decision making (SDM) by primary care clinicians.A three-phased approach was used: 1) development of a conceptual model of the SDM process; 2) development of an online teaching case utilizing the Design A Case (DAC) authoring template, a well-tested process used to create peer-reviewed web-based clinical cases across all levels of healthcare training; and 3) pilot testing of the case. Participants were clinician members affiliated with several primary care research networks across the United States who answered an invitation email. The case used prostate cancer screening as the clinical context and was delivered online. Post-intervention ratings of clinicians' general knowledge of SDM, knowledge of specific SDM steps, confidence in and intention to perform SDM steps were also collected online.Seventy-nine clinicians initially volunteered to participate in the study, of which 49 completed the case and provided evaluations. Forty-three clinicians (87.8%) reported the case met all the learning objectives, and 47 (95.9%) indicated the case was relevant for other equipoise decisions. Thirty-one clinicians (63.3%) accessed supplementary information via links provided in the case. After viewing the case, knowledge of SDM was high (over 90% correctly identified the steps in a SDM process). Determining a patient's preferred role in making the decision (62.5% very confident) and exploring a patient's values (65.3% very confident) about the decisions were areas where clinician confidence was lowest. More than 70% of the clinicians intended to perform SDM in the future.A comprehensive model of the SDM process was used to design a case-based approach to teaching SDM skills to primary care clinicians. The case was favorably rated in this pilot study. Clinician skills training for helping patients clarify their values and for assessing patients' desire for involvement in decision making remain significant challenges and should be a focus of future comparative studies.

Project description:Advance care planning (ACP) helps ensure that treatment preferences are met at the end of life. Medical professionals typically are responsible for facilitating patients' ACP, and may be especially effective in doing so if they have first-hand insights from their own planning. However, no large-scale U.S. studies examine whether persons working on the front lines of health care are more likely than other workers to have done ACP. We contrast the use of three ACP components (living wills, durable power of attorney for health care, and informal discussions) among persons working in medical, legal, social/health support services, other professional, and other non-professional occupations. Data are from the Health and Retirement Study (n = 7668) and Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (n = 5464). Multivariable logistic regression analyses are adjusted for socioeconomic, demographic, health, and psychosocial factors that may confound associations between occupational group and ACP. Medical professionals in both samples are more likely than other professional workers to discuss their own treatment preferences, net of all controls. Medical professionals in the WLS are more likely to execute living wills and DPAHC designations, whereas legal professionals in the HRS are more likely to name a DPAHC. Non-professional workers are significantly less likely to do all three types of planning, although these differences are accounted for by socioeconomic factors. Social and health services professionals are no more likely than other professionals to do ACP. The on-the-job experiences and expertise of medical professionals may motivate them to discuss their own end-of-life preferences, which may render them more trustworthy sources of information for patients and clients. The Affordable Care Act provides reimbursement for medical professionals' end-of-life consultations with Medicare beneficiary patients, yet practitioners uncomfortable with such conversations may fail to initiate them. Programs to increase medical professionals' own ACP may have the secondary benefit of increasing ACP among their patients.