TY - JOUR
T1 - Palliative Care Education in Cardiovascular Disease Fellowships
T2 - A National Survey of Program Directors
AU - GODFREY, SARAH
AU - STEINER, JILL M.
AU - DAMLUJI, ABDULLA A.
AU - SAMPATH, RAMYA
AU - CHUZI, SARAH
AU - WARRAICH, HAIDER
AU - KRISHNASWAMI, ASHOK
AU - BERNACKI, G. W.E.N.
AU - GOODLIN, SARAH
AU - JOSEPHSON, RICHARD
AU - MULROW, J. O.H.N.
AU - DOHERTY, CAROLINE
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: 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. Methods: 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 ꭕ2 analyses of survey data. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
AB - Background: 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. Methods: 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 ꭕ2 analyses of survey data. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85192235926&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85192235926&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.03.008
DO - 10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.03.008
M3 - Article
C2 - 38616006
AN - SCOPUS:85192235926
SN - 1071-9164
JO - Journal of Cardiac Failure
JF - Journal of Cardiac Failure
ER -