ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Frailty is common and highly associated with morbidity and mortality, a fact that has been highlighted by COVID-19. Understanding how to provide palliative care for frail individuals is an international priority, despite receiving limited mention in Palliative Medicine curricula or examinations worldwide. This study aimed to synthesise evidence and establish expert consensus on what should be included in a Palliative-Medicine Specialist Training Curriculum for frailty. METHODS: Literature Meta-synthesis conducted by palliative medicine, frailty and education experts produced a draft curriculum with Bologna based Learning-Outcomes. A Delphi study asked experts to rate the importance of Learning-Outcomes for specialist-training completion and propose additional Learning-Outcomes. This process was repeated until 70% consensus was achieved for over 90% of Learning-Outcomes. Experts divided Learning-Outcomes into specific (for inclusion in a frailty subsection) or generic (applicable to other palliative conditions). The Delphi panel was Subject Matter Experts: Palliative-Medicine Consultants (n=14) and Trainees (n=10), representing hospital, community, hospice and care home services and including committee members of key national training organisations. A final reviewing panel of Geriatric Medicine Specialists including experts in research methodology, national training requirements and frailty were selected. RESULTS: The meta-synthesis produced 114 Learning-Outcomes. The Delphi Study and Review by Geriatric Medicine experts resulted in 46 essential and 33 desirable Learning-Outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This frailty curriculum is applicable internationally and highlights the complex and unique palliative needs of frail patients. Future research is required to inform implementation, educational delivery and service provision.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Whilst the public now have access to mortality & morbidity data for cardiothoracic surgeons, such "quality" data for endoscopy are not generally available. We studied endoscopists' attitudes to and the practicality of this data being published. METHODS: We sent a questionnaire to all consultant gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons, physicians and medical GI specialist registrars in the Northern region who currently perform GI endoscopic procedures (n = 132). We recorded endoscopist demographics, experience and current data collection practice. We also assessed the acceptability and utility of nine items describing endoscopic "quality" (e.g. mortality, complication & completion rates). RESULTS: 103 (78%) doctors responded of whom 79 were consultants (77%). 61 (59%) respondents were physicians. 77 (75%) collect any "quality" data. The most frequently collected item was colonoscopic completion rate. Data were most commonly collected for appraisal, audit or clinical governance. The majority of doctors (54%) kept these data only available to themselves, and just one allowed the public to access this. The most acceptable data item was annual number of endoscopies and the least was crude upper GI bleeding mortality. Surgeons rated information less acceptable and less useful than physicians. Acceptability and utility scores were not related to gender, length of experience or current activity levels. Only two respondents thought all items totally unacceptable and useless. CONCLUSION: The majority of endoscopists currently collect "quality" data for their practice although these are not widely available. The endoscopists in this study consider the publication of their outcome data to be "fairly unacceptable/not very useful" to "neutral" (score 2-3). If these data were made available to patients, consideration must be given to both its value and its acceptability.
