The Impact of Words: Multisource Feedback Provides Students With a Deeper Understanding and Reflection on Goals of Care Discussions.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Daniel Kadden, Madeline Weber, Lori Herbst, Danielle E Weber
{"title":"The Impact of Words: Multisource Feedback Provides Students With a Deeper Understanding and Reflection on Goals of Care Discussions.","authors":"Daniel Kadden, Madeline Weber, Lori Herbst, Danielle E Weber","doi":"10.1177/10499091231175907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Physician communication during goals of care (GOC) discussions impact experiences for patients and families at end-of-life (EOL). Simulation allows training in a safe environment where feedback from simulated patients (SP), clinicians, and self-reflection can be incorporated. <b>Objectives:</b> To determine if multisource feedback from SP scenarios enriches feedback provided to trainees. <b>Design:</b> Fourth-medical students participated in two SP GOC discussions during an advanced care planning (ACP) curriculum. Students received feedback from SPs and faculty and completed a video review with self-reflection. <b>Setting and Subjects:</b> Forty-seven fourth-year medical students at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine participated in the curriculum from 2019-2021. <b>Measurements:</b> An inductive thematic analysis of the narrative data was performed examining all sources of feedback from the SP sessions. <b>Results:</b> Six themes emerged from the feedback: the warning shot: words to say and why it helps; acknowledging emotion: verbal vs non-verbal responses; organization: necessity of a clear path; body language: adding to and distracting from the conversation; terminology to avoid: what jargon encompasses and how it impacts patients; and silence: perceived importance by everyone. SP feedback focused on the personal emotional impact of a student's word choice and body language. Faculty feedback focused on specific learning points through examples from the conversation and expanded to hypothetical scenarios. Student self-reflection after video review allowed students to see challenges that they did not notice while immersed in the encounter. <b>Conclusion:</b> Multisource feedback from simulated GOC discussions provides unique insights for students to guide their development in leading difficult conversations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"173-178"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231175907","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Physician communication during goals of care (GOC) discussions impact experiences for patients and families at end-of-life (EOL). Simulation allows training in a safe environment where feedback from simulated patients (SP), clinicians, and self-reflection can be incorporated. Objectives: To determine if multisource feedback from SP scenarios enriches feedback provided to trainees. Design: Fourth-medical students participated in two SP GOC discussions during an advanced care planning (ACP) curriculum. Students received feedback from SPs and faculty and completed a video review with self-reflection. Setting and Subjects: Forty-seven fourth-year medical students at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine participated in the curriculum from 2019-2021. Measurements: An inductive thematic analysis of the narrative data was performed examining all sources of feedback from the SP sessions. Results: Six themes emerged from the feedback: the warning shot: words to say and why it helps; acknowledging emotion: verbal vs non-verbal responses; organization: necessity of a clear path; body language: adding to and distracting from the conversation; terminology to avoid: what jargon encompasses and how it impacts patients; and silence: perceived importance by everyone. SP feedback focused on the personal emotional impact of a student's word choice and body language. Faculty feedback focused on specific learning points through examples from the conversation and expanded to hypothetical scenarios. Student self-reflection after video review allowed students to see challenges that they did not notice while immersed in the encounter. Conclusion: Multisource feedback from simulated GOC discussions provides unique insights for students to guide their development in leading difficult conversations.

言语的影响力:多源反馈让学生更深入地理解和思考护理目标讨论。
背景:医生在讨论护理目标(GOC)时的沟通会影响患者和家属在生命末期(EOL)的体验。模拟训练可在安全的环境中进行,模拟患者 (SP)、临床医生和自我反省的反馈意见都可纳入其中。目的:确定来自模拟病人的多源反馈是否会影响临终病人和家属的生活:确定来自 SP 情景的多源反馈是否能丰富提供给学员的反馈。设计:在高级护理计划(ACP)课程中,大四医学生参加了两次 SP GOC 讨论。学生们收到了来自 SP 和教师的反馈,并完成了视频回顾和自我反思。环境和受试者:辛辛那提大学医学院的 47 名四年级医学生参加了 2019-2021 年的课程。测量:对叙述性数据进行归纳主题分析,检查SP课程的所有反馈来源。结果:反馈中出现了六个主题:警示语:要说的话以及为什么会有帮助;承认情感:言语与非言语反应;组织:清晰路径的必要性;肢体语言:增加谈话内容和分散谈话注意力;避免使用的术语:行话包括哪些内容以及它如何影响患者;沉默:每个人都认为很重要。SP 的反馈侧重于学生的用词和肢体语言对个人情绪的影响。教员的反馈侧重于通过对话中的例子来说明具体的学习要点,并扩展到假设情景。学生在回顾视频后进行自我反思,使他们看到了自己沉浸在对话中没有注意到的挑战。结论来自模拟 GOC 讨论的多源反馈为学生提供了独特的见解,以指导他们在引导困难对话方面的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信