| Title |
Primary care physicians’ educational needs and learning preferences in end of life care: A focus group study in the UK
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Palliative Care, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12904-017-0191-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucy Ellen Selman, Lisa Jane Brighton, Vicky Robinson, Rob George, Shaheen A. Khan, Rachel Burman, Jonathan Koffman |
| Abstract |
Primary care physicians (General Practitioners (GPs)) play a pivotal role in providing end of life care (EoLC). However, many lack confidence in this area, and the quality of EoLC by GPs can be problematic. Evidence regarding educational needs, learning preferences and the acceptability of evaluation methods is needed to inform the development and testing of EoLC education. This study therefore aimed to explore GPs' EoLC educational needs and preferences for learning and evaluation. A qualitative focus group study was conducted with qualified GPs and GP trainees in the UK. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed thematically. Expert review of the coding frame and dual coding of transcripts maximised rigour. Twenty-eight GPs (10 fully qualified, 18 trainees) participated in five focus groups. Four major themes emerged: (1) why education is needed, (2) perceived educational needs, (3) learning preferences, and (4) evaluation preferences. EoLC was perceived as emotionally and clinically challenging. Educational needs included: identifying patients for palliative care; responsibilities and teamwork; out-of-hours care; having difficult conversations; symptom management; non-malignant conditions; and paediatric palliative care. Participants preferred learning through experience, working alongside specialist palliative care staff, and discussion of real cases, to didactic methods and e-learning. 360° appraisals and behavioural assessment using videoing or simulated interactions were considered problematic. Self-assessment questionnaires and patient and family outcome measures were acceptable, if used and interpreted correctly. GPs require education and support in EoLC, particularly the management of complex clinical care and counselling. GPs value mentoring, peer-support, and experiential learning alongside EoLC specialists over formal training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 17 | 50% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 47% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 26% |
| Scientists | 7 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 226 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 20% |
| Researcher | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 14% |
| Unknown | 74 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 30 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 8% |
| Psychology | 9 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 18 | 8% |
| Unknown | 83 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,337,671
of 24,529,782 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#87
of 1,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,853
of 312,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,529,782 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,205 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.