仅仅训练就足够了吗?有无实施策略的大病传播培训比较。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Samantha X Y Wang, Rebecca Fong, Felicia Hui, Briththa Seevaratnam, Duy Nguyen, Winifred Teuteberg
{"title":"仅仅训练就足够了吗?有无实施策略的大病传播培训比较。","authors":"Samantha X Y Wang, Rebecca Fong, Felicia Hui, Briththa Seevaratnam, Duy Nguyen, Winifred Teuteberg","doi":"10.1177/10966218251376726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Communication skills training alone has shown limited impact on improving the frequency and quality of serious illness conversations (SICs). Implementing structured support strategies may enhance both adoption and sustained use in clinical practice. <b><i>Design:</i></b> Retrospective review of the impact of Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) training and implementation in outpatient and inpatient settings at a single academic center. <b><i>Setting:</i></b> Stanford Health Care is a health system affiliated with the Stanford School of Medicine, with 2 hospital campuses and 60 ambulatory practices throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. <b><i>Participants:</i></b> Physicians, physicians-in-training, advanced practice providers, and allied health professionals (occupational therapists, dieticians, social workers, and case managers) across departments. <b><i>Intervention:</i></b> From October 2020 to May 2023, our institution implemented the SICP, offering two communication skills training modalities: (1) Training Only and (2) Training with Implementation support, which included patient identification, data feedback, coaching, and department-specific quality improvement incentives. <b><i>Analysis:</i></b> We compared the adoption of SICs by examining the documentation frequencies of trained clinicians. Clinicians were categorized as never user (0 conversations), seldom users (1-4 conversations), occasional users (5-11 conversations), and frequent users (12 or more conversations) according to the number of documented SICs within one year after training. We also assessed the number of sustained users, defined as clinicians who documented SICs at least once a month over a six-month period following training. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Within the first 12 months of training, the Training Only group had a significantly higher percentage of never users compared with the Training with Implementation cohort (78.9% vs. 57.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). The Training with Implementation group had higher SICs documented across all other usage categories: seldom users (23.5% vs. 14.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), occasional users (10.2% vs. 4.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), and frequent users (8.5% vs. 2.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Compared with the Training Only group, the Training with Implementation group also had more sustained users (9.4% vs. 1.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.01) who consistently documented SIC monthly for six months. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Implementation support strategies enhance both the initial adoption and sustained use of SICs beyond training alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":16656,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Training Alone Enough? A Comparison of Serious Illness Communication Training With and Without Implementation Strategies.\",\"authors\":\"Samantha X Y Wang, Rebecca Fong, Felicia Hui, Briththa Seevaratnam, Duy Nguyen, Winifred Teuteberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10966218251376726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Communication skills training alone has shown limited impact on improving the frequency and quality of serious illness conversations (SICs). Implementing structured support strategies may enhance both adoption and sustained use in clinical practice. <b><i>Design:</i></b> Retrospective review of the impact of Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) training and implementation in outpatient and inpatient settings at a single academic center. <b><i>Setting:</i></b> Stanford Health Care is a health system affiliated with the Stanford School of Medicine, with 2 hospital campuses and 60 ambulatory practices throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. <b><i>Participants:</i></b> Physicians, physicians-in-training, advanced practice providers, and allied health professionals (occupational therapists, dieticians, social workers, and case managers) across departments. <b><i>Intervention:</i></b> From October 2020 to May 2023, our institution implemented the SICP, offering two communication skills training modalities: (1) Training Only and (2) Training with Implementation support, which included patient identification, data feedback, coaching, and department-specific quality improvement incentives. <b><i>Analysis:</i></b> We compared the adoption of SICs by examining the documentation frequencies of trained clinicians. Clinicians were categorized as never user (0 conversations), seldom users (1-4 conversations), occasional users (5-11 conversations), and frequent users (12 or more conversations) according to the number of documented SICs within one year after training. We also assessed the number of sustained users, defined as clinicians who documented SICs at least once a month over a six-month period following training. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Within the first 12 months of training, the Training Only group had a significantly higher percentage of never users compared with the Training with Implementation cohort (78.9% vs. 57.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). The Training with Implementation group had higher SICs documented across all other usage categories: seldom users (23.5% vs. 14.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), occasional users (10.2% vs. 4.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.01), and frequent users (8.5% vs. 2.2%, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Compared with the Training Only group, the Training with Implementation group also had more sustained users (9.4% vs. 1.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.01) who consistently documented SIC monthly for six months. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Implementation support strategies enhance both the initial adoption and sustained use of SICs beyond training alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of palliative medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10966218251376726\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10966218251376726","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:单独的沟通技巧培训对提高重病谈话的频率和质量的影响有限。实施结构化的支持策略可以提高在临床实践中的采用和持续使用。设计:回顾性评价在单一学术中心的门诊和住院设置中,严重疾病护理计划(SICP)培训和实施的影响。环境:斯坦福医疗保健是一个隶属于斯坦福医学院的医疗系统,在旧金山湾区拥有2个医院校区和60个门诊诊所。参与者:跨部门的内科医生、在训内科医生、高级实践提供者和联合卫生专业人员(职业治疗师、营养师、社会工作者和病例管理人员)。干预措施:从2020年10月至2023年5月,我院实施SICP,提供两种沟通技巧培训模式:(1)单纯培训和(2)支持实施的培训,包括患者识别、数据反馈、指导和科室质量改进激励。分析:我们通过检查训练有素的临床医生的记录频率来比较sic的采用。根据培训后一年内记录的sic数量,将临床医生分为从不使用(0次对话)、很少使用(1-4次对话)、偶尔使用(5-11次对话)和频繁使用(12次或更多)。我们还评估了持续使用者的数量,定义为在培训后的六个月内每月至少记录一次sic的临床医生。结果:在培训的前12个月内,仅培训组的未使用者比例明显高于实施培训组(78.9% vs. 57.6%, p < 0.01)。培训与实施组在所有其他使用类别中记录了更高的sic:很少用户(23.5%对14.6%,p < 0.01),偶尔用户(10.2%对4.2%,p < 0.01)和频繁用户(8.5%对2.2%,p < 0.01)。与仅训练组相比,训练与实施组也有更多的持续用户(9.4% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.01),他们每月持续记录SIC 6个月。结论:实施支持战略提高了初始采用和持续使用信息系统,而不仅仅是培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is Training Alone Enough? A Comparison of Serious Illness Communication Training With and Without Implementation Strategies.

Background: Communication skills training alone has shown limited impact on improving the frequency and quality of serious illness conversations (SICs). Implementing structured support strategies may enhance both adoption and sustained use in clinical practice. Design: Retrospective review of the impact of Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) training and implementation in outpatient and inpatient settings at a single academic center. Setting: Stanford Health Care is a health system affiliated with the Stanford School of Medicine, with 2 hospital campuses and 60 ambulatory practices throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Participants: Physicians, physicians-in-training, advanced practice providers, and allied health professionals (occupational therapists, dieticians, social workers, and case managers) across departments. Intervention: From October 2020 to May 2023, our institution implemented the SICP, offering two communication skills training modalities: (1) Training Only and (2) Training with Implementation support, which included patient identification, data feedback, coaching, and department-specific quality improvement incentives. Analysis: We compared the adoption of SICs by examining the documentation frequencies of trained clinicians. Clinicians were categorized as never user (0 conversations), seldom users (1-4 conversations), occasional users (5-11 conversations), and frequent users (12 or more conversations) according to the number of documented SICs within one year after training. We also assessed the number of sustained users, defined as clinicians who documented SICs at least once a month over a six-month period following training. Results: Within the first 12 months of training, the Training Only group had a significantly higher percentage of never users compared with the Training with Implementation cohort (78.9% vs. 57.6%, p < 0.01). The Training with Implementation group had higher SICs documented across all other usage categories: seldom users (23.5% vs. 14.6%, p < 0.01), occasional users (10.2% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01), and frequent users (8.5% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.01). Compared with the Training Only group, the Training with Implementation group also had more sustained users (9.4% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.01) who consistently documented SIC monthly for six months. Conclusion: Implementation support strategies enhance both the initial adoption and sustained use of SICs beyond training alone.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of palliative medicine
Journal of palliative medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Palliative Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed journal covering medical, psychosocial, policy, and legal issues in end-of-life care and relief of suffering for patients with intractable pain. The Journal presents essential information for professionals in hospice/palliative medicine, focusing on improving quality of life for patients and their families, and the latest developments in drug and non-drug treatments. The companion biweekly eNewsletter, Briefings in Palliative Medicine, delivers the latest breaking news and information to keep clinicians and health care providers continuously updated.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信