4.1 Article

Evaluation of the Impact of a Simulation-enhanced Breaking Bad News Workshop in Pediatrics

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000031

关键词

Breaking bad news; Pediatrics; Simulation; Difficult conversations; Standardized parents

资金

  1. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Our goal was to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a simulation-based workshop for teaching pediatric trainees' communication skills in breaking bad news. Methods: A simulation-based workshop was developed to teach skills in breaking bad news. After a classroom-based introduction, small groups of residents participated in 3 scenarios, each starting with a simulated resuscitation, followed by 2 conversations with the patient's parent, played by actors. Each conversation was observed through a 1-way mirror and was followed by a debriefing. After the workshop, the residents completed workshop evaluations and a self-assessment. Before and after the workshop, residents were evaluated in Objective Structured Clinical Examination stations where they were required to give bad news. Two physician experts and 2 parents who personally experienced receiving bad news about their child evaluated resident performance using a previously validated communication evaluation tool. Results: Residents' ratings of the workshop were very high for all items, and 100% of the residents reported improvement in their ability to deliver bad news after the workshop. Statistically significant improvement was found in 14 of 17 items of the evaluation tool used by experts and parents, with the parents reporting greater improvement than the experts. Conclusions: This reflective, simulation-based workshop successfully improved pediatric trainees' skills in having difficult conversations with families, as evaluated by the participants, by physician experts, and, most importantly, by parents who have experienced these conversations in real life.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据