4.6 Article

Developing competencies for multidisciplinary hospice and palliative care professionals in Korea

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages 2707-2717

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-013-1850-3

Keywords

Competency; Hospice; Palliative care; Delphi survey; Education

Funding

  1. National Cancer Center of Korea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Competency-based assessment helps to improve performance and to standardize education programs for hospice and palliative care professionals. This paper aims to report the process and results of developing the hospice and palliative care competencies by multidisciplinary experts in Korea. The competency development task force team of Korean hospice and palliative care professionals was comprised of seven physicians, four nurses, two social workers, and two clergy. To build consensus regarding competencies, the team performed a two-round Delphi survey. The importance of competency domains was assessed by using a 5-point Likert scale. After the completion of the Delphi survey, final competency domains were decided in a consensus meeting. The competencies were composed of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The competency domains were identified as the following: 11 domains and 16 subdomains for physicians, 11 domains for nurses, 5 domains and 15 subdomains for social workers, as well as 3 domains and 5 subdomains for spiritual care providers. The high importance domains were different by specialties. Physical care and treatment for physicians, symptom management for nurses, bereavement care for social workers, and communication for spiritual care providers were ranked as highly important. For nurses and spiritual care providers, attitude-related domains were ranked the highest in importance. The competencies developed by multidisciplinary professionals are useful to identify the appropriate roles of each hospice and palliative care specialist involved in a team approach to patient care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available