Inclusion of person-centred care in UK postgraduate medical education curricula: Interviews and documentary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) involves placing people at the centre of their healthcare decision making to ensure it meets their needs, values, and personal circumstances. Increasingly, PCC is promoted in healthcare policy and guidance, but little is known about how this is embedded in postgraduate medical training. The aim of this research was to understand how PCC is embedded in UK postgraduate medical training and explore factors influencing inclusion of PCC in curricula content. METHODS: To explore this, we interviewed senior professionals with key roles in the curricula from four UK Royal Colleges (Psychiatrists; Physicians; Surgeons; and GPs) and used framework analysis on interviews and relevant curricula documents to identify themes. RESULTS: Legislation and professional/educational guidance influenced inclusion. PCC definitions and terminology differed and placement within curricula was variable. Royal Colleges defined the curriculum and provided training to ensure competence, but local deaneries independently implemented the curriculum. Trainer engagement was greater than trainee buy in. Quality assurance focused on feedback from trainers and trainees rather than patients, and patient and public involvement in curriculum development, teaching, and assessment was limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for cross-organisation collaboration to develop a PCC competence framework that defines the skills and level of competence required at different points in training, with clarity around the differences between undergraduate and postgraduate requirements. Greater auditing and quality assurance of programme delivery would help identify successful practices to share within and across Royal Colleges, while still maintaining the flexibility of local provision. Engagement with patients and the public in this work can only strengthen provision.

Inclusion of person-centred care in medical and nursing undergraduate curricula in the UK: Interviews and documentary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand how person-centred care (PCC) is represented in UK professional standards for undergraduate medical/nursing education and explored how these are reflected in programme provision. METHODS: We identified PCC components in medical (GMC) and nursing (NMC) professional standards and university curricula documents provided. We also identified themes from interviews with high-level informants for medical/nursing undergraduate programmes using framework analysis. RESULTS: The GMC appears to promote a more paternalistic model of care with discrete PCC components in specific sections and the NMC a more collaborative model with PCC distributed throughout. These differences persisted into education delivery. Medical educators perceived greater barriers to inclusion of PCC than nursing educators; however, both consistently identified cultural and organisational attributes. Clarity was lacking regarding PCC definition, how to teach/assess PCC, and competence expectations. CONCLUSION: Development of a PCC skills competence framework would increase consistency and support teaching and assessment in undergraduate curricula. Further research to understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals involved in placements would help inform PCC teaching recommendations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: High-level support from senior HEI leaders; multi-disciplinary approaches to curricula development, teaching, and assessment; and greater inclusion of service users would ensure higher quality PCC education for undergraduate students.

Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management. METHODS: We recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement. RESULTS: We collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: When services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems.