Godfrey S, Steiner JM, Damluji AA, Sampath R, Chuzi S, Warraich H, Krishnaswami A, Bernacki G, Goodlin S, Josephson R, Mulrow J, Doherty C. Palliative Care Education in Cardiovascular Disease Fellowships: A National Survey of Program Directors.
J Card Fail 2024:S1071-9164(24)00116-7. [PMID:
38616006 PMCID:
PMC11470968 DOI:
10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.03.008]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2023] [Revised: 03/11/2024] [Accepted: 03/12/2024] [Indexed: 04/16/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse