Engaging oncologists toward integrating a shared mental model for palliative oncology within a large academic oncology practice.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 105-105
Author(s):  
Anne Margaret Walling ◽  
Christopher Pietras ◽  
Kauser Ahmed ◽  
Anne Coscarelli ◽  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Mental Model ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Shared Mental Model ◽  
Oncology Nurse ◽  
Continuous Quality ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Oncology Practice

105 Background: We aimed to engage oncologists to disseminate a successful pilot-tested shared mental model (SMM) for the integration of early advance care planning (ACP) and identification of palliative care (PC) needs across a health system’s oncologic practice. Methods: Our Oncology Communication Collaborative Team (OCCT) had oncology leadership support and included a multidisciplinary team representing leaders in oncology, ACP, PC, psycho-social oncology and quality. To communicate the SMM developed by our team, the OCCT developed an interactive Saturday session (1-hr didactic, 3-hr small group role-play) that focused on early ACP and the cognitive and emotional aspects of communication. Before and after the training, we asked participants to rate their ability to communicate with patients as well as their readiness, self-efficacy, and need for help to improve communication regarding prognosis, ACP, end of life care and symptom management using a previously validated survey. We computed means and compared matched pairs of pre and post surveys using a paired t-test. We also surveyed participants about whether they would recommend the course to others and planned changes to practice. Results: All but one oncologist (52/53), 3/4 invited fellows, and 12/14 oncology nurse practitioners participated and 90% of attendees completed pre and post surveys. Participants rated their communication ability higher (6.7 v. 7.6, p < 0.01) on a 10-point scale after the training. Readiness to improve communication in this domain (9.1 v. 9.2, p = 0.35) was similar before and after the training. Self-efficacy (1.5 v. 1.5, p = 0.70) and needing help to improve (1.6 v. 1.7, p = 0.37) were rated highly (1 = A lot and 4 = Not at all) but did not change with training. All but one participant reported they would recommend the course to others and free text responses about changes they planned to make to their practice based on the training included: having earlier ACP discussions, focusing on patient goals/priorities and asking open-ended questions. Conclusions: Conducting a training to disseminate a SMM of oncology and PC is feasible, valuable, and can be the first step for partnered continuous quality improvement.

Primary care nurse practitioners providing survivorship cancer care.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14-14
Author(s):  
Margaret Quinn Rosenzweig ◽  
Sara Klein ◽  
Mary Connolly ◽  
Rose Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Nurse Practitioner ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Hospice Care ◽  
Course Evaluation ◽  
Care Nurse ◽  
Primary Care Nurse ◽  
Oncology Nurse ◽  
Oncology Practice

14 Background: The Oncology Nurse Practitioner Web Education Resource (ONc-PoWER) is an online course developed specifically for nurse practitioners (NPs) in their first year of oncology practice paired with an onsite mentor (physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant). Based on the Oncology Nursing Society’s Competencies for Entry to Practice, the course consists of 5 interactive modules: 1) the new patient visit 2) presenting a patient with cancer 3) cancer visits across the continuum of care 4) palliative and hospice care 5) self-care and professional development. The purpose of this study was to examine the NPs and mentors experience with the learning activities and to what degree the learning objectives were met. Methods: Dyads of NPs and mentors completed the course over 4-6 months. There are items for course evaluation with Likert scaled responses of 1) did not meet objective 2) somewhat met objective 3) met objective 4) more than met objective 5) exceeded objective expectation. Results: Enrollment is ongoing. Thirty NPs new to practice and 22 oncology mentors have completed evaluations thus far. Responses overall are favorable. Conclusions: The ONcPoWER web enhanced oncology orientation program was favorably evaluated by nurse practitioners new to cancer care and their mentors. This method of electronic orientation could standardize the exposure of essential basic cancer care competencies at entry to oncology nurse practitioner practice and, with some edits to content, for community based primary care nurse practitioners caring for cancer survivors. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Engaging Oncologists Toward Integrating a Shared Mental Model (SMM) for Palliative Oncology within a Large Academic Oncology Practice (TH341B)

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 581-582
Author(s):  
Anne Walling ◽  
Anne Coscarelli ◽  
Wendy Simon ◽  
Neil Wenger ◽  
Christopher Pietras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Model ◽  
Shared Mental Model ◽  
Palliative Oncology ◽  
Oncology Practice

scholarly journals 1129. Optimizing Feedback Strategies on the Infectious Diseases Inpatient Service

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S593-S594
Author(s):  
Eva Clark ◽  
Prathit Kulkarni ◽  
Mayar Al Mohajer ◽  
Stacey Rose ◽  
Jose Serpa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Clinical Education ◽  
Mental Model ◽  
Inpatient Service ◽  
Shared Mental Model ◽  
Effective Feedback ◽  
Medical Trainees ◽  
Feedback Strategies ◽  
Giving Feedback

Abstract Background Timely, efficient, and effective feedback strategies are crucial for enhancing faculty-trainee communication and trainee education. Here we describe attitudes, practices, and perceived behaviors regarding giving feedback to medical trainees rotating on Infectious Diseases (ID) inpatient consult services. Methods An anonymous survey on feedback strategies was distributed to our adult ID Section in February 2020 as part of a facilitated discussion on optimizing trainee clinical education. Results Twenty-six ID Section members completed the survey (18 faculty, 8 trainees). Most trainees (62.5%) and faculty (66.7%) felt that trainees are “sometimes” comfortable voicing concerns to faculty; however, no trainees but 11.1% of faculty indicated that trainees are “always” comfortable voicing concerns to faculty. Most trainees (87.5%) felt that conversations about team expectations occur “sometimes” or “often.” In contrast, most faculty (72.2%) felt that these conversations “always” occur. Although most faculty felt that both informal (94.4%) and formal (83.3%) feedback should be given to trainees, 22.2% of faculty responded that they do not explicitly use the term “feedback” when discussing feedback with a trainee. No trainees and 22.2% of faculty indicated that they utilize a feedback tool. Regarding quantity of feedback trainees perceive they receive from faculty, 37.5% of trainees felt they needed more feedback while 50% felt they received adequate feedback. Most faculty (88.9%) responded that they encourage trainees to give feedback to faculty, although most trainees (62.5%) responded “sometimes” regarding how comfortable they feel doing so. Conclusion In summary, we found differences between faculty and trainees regarding two important aspects of medical education: setting expectations and providing feedback. While most faculty feel that conversations regarding these topics occur invariably, trainees do not always share this perception. Trainees felt less comfortable voicing concerns and giving feedback to faculty than faculty perceived them to be. Overall, the data suggest that there is room for improvement to ensure that trainees and faculty are operating from a shared mental model regarding setting team expectations and providing/receiving feedback. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals How does participation in a voluntary prize exam affect medical students’ knowledge and interest in ENT, plastic surgery, ophthalmology and dermatology?

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Razan Nour ◽  
Kerry Jobling ◽  
Alasdair Mayer ◽  
Salma Babikir
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Junior Doctors ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Spare Time ◽  
Before And After ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Interest And Knowledge

Abstract Background Otolaryngology (ENT), plastic surgery, ophthalmology and dermatology are medical specialties which tend to receive less coverage in UK medical school curricula compared to larger, generalist specialties. As a result, there are fewer opportunities for medical students to learn and to cultivate an interest. There are numerous papers that report concerns about junior doctors’ ability to manage conditions within these specialties, which may jeopardise patient safety. The aim of our pilot project was to increase medical students’ interest and knowledge of ENT, plastic surgery, ophthalmology and dermatology. In addition to describing our project, we present and discuss literature on UK undergraduate education in these specialties and its impact on preparedness of junior doctors and future career choices. Methods One hundred twelve final year medical students at Newcastle University were invited to take part in a voluntary two-part (written and clinical) exam, in which prizes could be won and all participants would receive a certificate of participation. We distributed two online surveys to the students, one administered before the exam and one afterwards. Data was collected regarding the students’ motivation for entering the prize exam and the students’ baseline interest and knowledge in these specialties before and after the prize exam. Free-text responses were collected about the students’ opinion of the project and whether participation was beneficial. Results Sixteen students participated in the exam. There was a statistically significant increase in the students’ knowledge in ENT (p < 0.000), plastic surgery (p < 0.000), ophthalmology (p < 0.028) and dermatology (p < 0.012) after participation in the exam, but not in their interest levels. ENT was the preferred specialty of our cohort. The students reported that they found participation beneficial to their learning, particularly receiving exam feedback and explanations to exam questions. Conclusions This pilot project was a useful intervention in increasing medical students’ knowledge in these specialties, but not in their levels of interest. It also demonstrates that medical students are willing to participate in voluntary initiatives (in their spare time) to gain more learning opportunities and that medical students value timely exam feedback to guide their revision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document