How to talk about dying? The development of an evidence-based model for communication with patients in their last days of life and their family caregivers.

Objective: To help healthcare professionals (HCP) act with more confidence when communicating about approaching death, we sought to develop a communication model for HCP to facilitate conversations with dying patients and family caregivers (FC) in nonemergency situations. Methods: We used a four-phase integrative approach: (1) creation of a preliminary model based on a systematic literature review and expert knowledge, (2) review of the model draft by international palliative care experts, (3) review by key stakeholders, and (4) final appraisal by communication experts. Results: After the clinical recognition of dying, the communication model provides a structure and practical communication aids for navigating the conversation based on three phases. It describes the content and relational level as core dimensions of effective conversations about approaching death and highlights the importance of HCP self-awareness and self-care when caring for the dying. Conclusion: Based on systematic involvement of key stakeholders, the model supports clinicians navigating challenging conversations about approaching death with dying patients and their FC successfully and with more confidence. Innovation: This study expands the theoretical basis for communication about approaching death and offers a pragmatic model for educational interventions and clinical use.

Talking about dying and death: Essentials of communicating about approaching death from the perspective of major stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: Although caring for dying patients and their family caregivers (FC) is integral to patient care, training in communication about approaching death is almost inexistent in medical and nursing curricula. Consequently, many health professionals have insufficient knowledge about conducting these conversations. In order to gain a broader insight into essential aspects of this communication from different perspectives, we conducted focus groups with key stakeholders. METHODS: Medical specialists, nurses, medical students, bereaved FC and patient representatives participated in five focus groups (n = 30). Following a focus group schedule, we elicited relevant aspects of communication about approaching death, associated emotions, and appropriate communication frameworks. We analyzed data thematically. RESULTS: Four main themes were central to conversations about approaching death: (1) embracing care within medical expertise, (2) preparing the conversation while remaining open to the unexpected, (3) recognizing and reflecting on own emotions and reactions, and (4) establishing a meaningful connection with others. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Communicating about approaching death with dying patients and their FC can be complex and challenging at a professional and personal level. With the recognition of the dying phase, a process is initiated for which health professionals need solid clinical knowledge about but also effective communication skills, constant self-reflection and self-care strategies. Comprehensive training and supervision while dealing with the challenges of communicating approaching death to dying patients and their FC are key, particularly for trainees, less experienced physicians and nurses. The essential components identified in this study can help health professionals to master these conversations.

Usability and preference of electronic vs. paper and pencil OSCE checklists by examiners and influence of checklist type on missed ratings in the Swiss Federal Licensing Exam.

Background: Only a few studies with small sample sizes have compared electronic Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) rating checklists with traditional paper-based OSCE rating checklists. In this study, the examiner-perceived usability and preference for type of OSCE checklist (electronic vs. paper based) were compared, and the influence of OSCE checklist type on missed ratings was determined, for the Swiss Federal Licensing Examination in clinical skills for human medicine. Methods: All examiners in the Swiss Federal Licensing Examination in clinical skills for human medicine were invited over two subsequent years to evaluate the OSCE checklist type they had worked with during the examination. This was based on a questionnaire with 14 closed questions (i.e., demographic, checklist-type experience, perceived usability, checklist type preference). Furthermore, the numbers of missed ratings for the paper-based checklist were recorded. Results: The data from these examiners (n=377) with experience of both OSCE checklist types were analyzed. The electronic OSCE checklist was rated significantly higher on all usability aspects (i.e., ease of use, candidate rating and error correction, clarity, distraction using the checklist, overall satisfaction), except for the speed of registering comments (no significant difference). The majority of the examiners in both years (2014: 54.5%, n=60, 2015: 89.8%, n=230) reported preference for working with the electronic OSCE checklist in the future. Missed ratings were seen for 14.2% of the paper-based OSCE checklists, which were prevented with the electronic OSCE checklists. Conclusions: Electronic OSCE checklists were rated significantly more user-friendly and were preferred over paper-based OSCE checklists by a broad national sample of examiners, supporting previous results from faculty-level examinations. Furthermore, missed ratings were prevented with the electronic OSCE checklists. Overall, the use of electronic OSCE checklists is therefore advisable.

Do students achieve the desired learning goals using open-book formative assessments?

OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to examine whether medical students benefit from an open-book online formative assessment as a preparation for a practical course. METHODS: A between-subjects experimental design was used: participants - a whole cohort of second-year medical students (N=232) - were randomly assigned to either a formative assessment that covered the topic of a subsequent practical course (treatment condition) or a formative assessment that did not cover the topic of the subsequent course (control condition). Course-script-knowledge, as well as additional in-depth-knowledge, was assessed. RESULTS: Students in the treatment condition had better course-script knowledge, both at the beginning, t(212) = 4.96, p < .01, d = 0.72., and in the end of the practical course , t(208) = 4.80, p < .01, d = 0.68. Analyses of covariance show that this effect is stronger for those students who understood the feedback that was presented within the formative assessment, F(1, 213)=10.17, p<.01. Additionally, the gain of in-depth-knowledge was significantly higher for students in the treatment condition compared to students in the control condition, t(208) = 3.68., p < .05, d = 0.72 (0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Students benefit from a formative assessment that is related to and takes place before a subsequent practical course. They have a better understanding of the topic and gain more in-depth-knowledge that goes beyond the content of the script. Moreover, the study points out the importance of feedback pages in formative assessments.