JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE Volume 18, Number 4, 2015 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2014.0270

Curricular Innovations for Medical Students in Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review and Assessment of Study Quality Jennifer DeCoste-Lopez,1 Jai Madhok, MD, MSE,2 and Stephanie Harman, MD1

Abstract

Background: Recent focus on palliative and end-of-life care has led medical schools worldwide to enhance their palliative care curricula. Objective: The objective of the study was to describe recent curricular innovations in palliative care for medical students, evaluate the quality of studies in the field, and inform future research and curricular design. Methods: The authors searched Medline, Scopus, and Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) for English-language articles published between 2007 and 2013 describing a palliative care curriculum for medical students. Characteristics of the curricula were extracted, and methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results: The sample described 48 curricula in 12 countries. Faculty were usually interdisciplinary. Palliative care topics included patient assessment, communication, pain and symptom management, psychosocial and spiritual needs, bioethics and the law, role in the health care system, interdisciplinary teamwork, and self-care. Thirty-nine articles included quantitative evaluation, with a mean MERSQI score of 9.9 (on a scale of 5 to 18). The domain most likely to receive a high score was data analysis (mean 2.51 out of 3), while the domains most likely to receive low scores were validity of instrument (mean 1.05) and outcomes (mean 1.31). Conclusions: Recent innovations in palliative care education for medical students represent varied settings, learner levels, instructors, educational modalities, and palliative care topics. Future curricula should continue to incorporate interdisciplinary faculty. Studies could be improved by integrating longitudinal curricula and longer-term outcomes; collaborating across institutions; using validated measures; and assessing higher-level outcomes including skills, behaviors, and impact on patient care.

Introduction

I

n the past two decades, a national focus on the importance of palliative and end-of-life care1 has led medical schools to enhance their palliative care curricula.2 Since 2000, the Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME), the accrediting body for all allopathic medical schools in the United States and Canada, has required that all medical schools include education in palliative care and communication skills.3 Longitudinal surveys of medical school administrators over the past 35 years have demonstrated that overall offerings in palliative care education have been consistently increasing; and since 2000, 100% of U.S. medical schools have had at least some offering regarding death and dying.2 However, in their recent review of surveys of medical educators in the United States, Horowitz, et al.

found that approaches to palliative care education are highly variable between medical schools, with some schools reporting as little as two hours of classroom time, while others require weeks of training or clinical experience. Given that medical schools already suffer from overstrained curricula, the authors advocate integrating developmentally appropriate, basic palliative care competencies into each year of the medical school curriculum to avoid both neglect of the topic and educational overload.4 A recent national survey of palliative care experts arrived at a proposed set of competencies for medical students.5 As palliative care educators advocate for scarce curricular time and select educational methods, it is imperative to identify rigorously tested curricula that can be used. Although previous reviews related to palliative care education exist, these have largely focused on the overall state of

1

Department of Medicine, 2Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Accepted November 24, 2014.

338

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PALLIATIVE CARE CURRICULA

palliative care education in the United States, rather than evaluations of discrete curricula or innovations made in the field worldwide.4,6,7 Furthermore, to our knowledge there has been no systematic assessment of the quality of the evidence supporting such interventions. Therefore, we undertook a systematic literature review to inform curricular development at our own medical school, to understand recent trends in this field, and to evaluate the quality of the literature. Methods

We conducted this systematic review in adherence with the PRISMA standards8 as applied to a systematic review without meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was not pursued, because the literature in this area consists of heterogeneous interventions and outcomes, as well as many pilot or qualitative studies that are not amenable to this methodology. Questions

These are the research questions we sought to answer: 

What educational interventions have recently been described to teach palliative care topics to undergraduate medical students?  What is the methodological quality of the studies in this field?

339

in which a single intervention was reported in more than one article, we identified the article that provided the most complete description and excluded the others. Data extraction

Study characteristics for each included article were summarized, including country, learner level, instructors, setting, educational modality, duration of intervention, and palliative care topics addressed. Two authors ( JD and JM) independently tabulated a Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) score9 for all articles that included a quantitative evaluation. Disagreements between the two raters were resolved by rereview and consensus to assign the final score. The MERSQI was developed by Reed, et al. in 2007 as a measure of methodological rigor of medical education studies. The MERSQI scores studies across six domains: study design, sampling, type of data, validity of evaluation instrument, data analysis, and outcomes. These domains are further divided to yield 10 items. Each of the six domains has a maximum score of 3, giving a possible score for each study ranging from a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 18. This scoring system is summarized in the first three columns of Table 1. Results Trial flow

Study eligibility

We included academic articles published in the English language between 2007 and 2013. We chose this date range because a previous review in this topic area reviewed the literature through the end of 2006.6 Articles were included if the population of interest was undergraduate allopathic medical students and if the article described the evaluation of a curriculum in a palliative care topic. Articles that described new curricula but did not include evaluation of any learner outcome were excluded. Study identification

In collaboration with a medical librarian we designed searches of Medline via PubMed, Scopus, and Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) databases for relevant articles. We performed iterative searches in each database to optimize the relevance and comprehensiveness of the results. We last performed the searches on January 16, 2014. The search strings used were: Medline: ((terminal care OR ‘‘palliative care’’ OR ‘‘palliative medicine’’ OR ‘‘end of life’’ OR ‘‘end-of-life’’) AND (education, medical, undergraduate OR ‘‘medical students’’)) Scopus: ((‘‘palliative care’’ OR ‘‘palliative medicine’’ OR ‘‘end of life’’ OR ‘‘end-of-life’’ OR ‘‘hospice’’) AND (‘‘undergraduate medical education’’ OR ‘‘medical students’’)) ERIC: ((‘‘palliative care’’ OR ‘‘palliative medicine’’ OR ‘‘end of life’’ OR ‘‘end-of-life’’ OR ‘‘hospice’’ OR ‘‘terminal illness’’ OR death) AND (‘‘medical students’’)) Study selection

Two authors ( JD and JM) independently screened all articles, first reviewing titles and abstracts and then full texts. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. In the three instances

Our initial database searches identified 1167 results, and after de-duplication, 829 were found to be unique articles. After filtering the results for English language and date of publication, we reviewed the titles and abstracts of the remaining 299. Sixty-eight met our inclusion criteria based on review of titles and abstracts. Full-text review led to the exclusion of an additional 20, yielding a final sample of 48 articles (see Fig. 1). Study characteristics

The included studies describe 48 unique curricula delivered in 12 countries, which are summarized in Appendix 1: Summary of Curriculum Characteristics.10–57 Twenty-two articles were from the United States; 7 from the United Kingdom; 4 from Canada; 3 from Taiwan; 2 each from Australia, Croatia, and Germany; and 1 each from Brazil, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, and Poland. Educational setting was most often a mix of classroom and clinical settings (n = 21, 44%). Seventeen (35%) were in a classroom setting only, 7 (15%) in a clinical setting only, and 6 (13%) included online instruction. The targeted learners were clinical medical students (I = 27, 56%), preclinical medical students (I = 17, 35%), or both (n = 3, 6%). Five studies (10%) delivered the intervention to medical students together with other learners, such as nursing students, social work students, pharmacy students, residents, and/or practicing health professionals. Physicians served as instructors for 29 interventions (60%), including 19 (40%) in which the faculty included hospice and palliative medicine specialists. It was also very common to involve other health professionals as teachers, most commonly nurses or nurse practitioners (n = 15, 31%), social workers (n = 7, 15%), and chaplains (n = 7, 15%). In 12 articles (25%) the instructors were not specified.

340

DECOSTE-LOPEZ ET AL.

Table 1. Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) Scores for Studies with Quantitative Evaluation Domain Study design

Sampling

Type of data

Validity of instrument

Data analysis

Outcomes

Number of studies

MERSQI item

Score

1) Study design Cross-sectional or single-group posttest only Single group pretest and posttest Nonrandomized, two-group Randomized controlled trial

1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0

12 17 8 2

0.5 1.0 1.5

38 (97%) 0 1 (3%)

Mean (domain)

1.53

1.53

0.53

1.74

(31%) (44%) (21%) (5%)

2) Number of institutions studied 1 2 >2 3) Response rate Not applicable < 50% or not reported 50%–74% ‡ 75%

0.5 1.0 1.5

4) Type of data Assessment by study participant Objective measurement

1.0 3.0

24 (62%) 15 (38%)

0 1.0

0 24 (62%) 15 (38%)

0 1.0

0 16 (41%) 23 (59%)

0 1.0

0 36 (92%) 3 (8%)

0 1.0

4 (10%) 35 (90%)

1.0 2.0

15 (38%) 24 (62%)

1.0

21 (54%)

1.5 2.0 3.0

14 (36%) 3 (8%) 1 (3%)

1.22 0

5) Internal structure Not applicable Not reported Reported 6) Content Not applicable Not reported Reported 7) Relationships to other variables Not applicable Not reported Reported 8) Appropriateness of data analysis Inappropriate for study design or type of data Appropriate for study design or type of data 9) Complexity of analysis Descriptive analysis only Beyond descriptive analysis 10) Outcomes Satisfaction, attitudes, perceptions, opinions, general facts Knowledge, skills Behaviors Patient/health care outcome

1.77

1.77

0.38

1.05

0.59

0.08

0.90

2.51

1.62

1.31

1.31

9.91

Total score A variety of educational modalities were employed, including lectures (n = 29, 60%), group discussion (n = 27, 56%), clinical exposure, which we defined as education that takes place in a clinical setting but does not involve direct patient care responsibilities (n = 14, 29%), patient care (n = 13, 27%), simulation or role play (n = 13, 27%), written assignment (n = 12, 25%), online module (n = 6, 13%), student presentation (n = 6, 13%), reading assignment (n = 6, 13%), multimedia (n = 6, 13%), and arts activity or performance (n = 2, 4%). The curricular time spent for the educational interventions ranged from 45 minutes to 25 hours. Some articles described single teaching sessions, while others evaluated complex curricula delivered over longer periods (up to four years).

Mean (item)

Topics within palliative care addressed by the curricula included communication (n = 30, 63%), role of palliative and end-of-life care in the health care system (n = 26, 54%), pain and symptom management (n = 22, 46%), clinical assessment of patients (n = 20, 42%), addressing psychosocial and spiritual needs (n = 19, 40%), ethics and the law (n = 18, 38%), interdisciplinary teamwork (n = 15, 31%), and self-care (n = 11, 23%). Five studies (10%) did not specify the topics covered. Study quality

Of the 48 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, 39 included quantitative methods and were assigned MERSQI

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PALLIATIVE CARE CURRICULA

FIG. 1.

341

Trial flow for systematic review.

scores, while the others were solely qualitative. Table 1 summarizes the MERSQI scoring system and the results for our sample. Scores ranged from 5 to 15 (possible range 5 to 18), with a mean score of 9.9 and standard deviation of 2.7. The most common study design was single-group pretest and posttest (n = 17, 35%). However, 10 studies (21%) involved a control group, including 2 (4%) that randomized their participants. The domain most likely to receive a high score was data analysis, with a mean of 2.51 out of 3. Twenty-four articles (50%) received the maximum possible score for both appropriateness and complexity of data analysis. The domains that scored lowest in our sample were validity of the evaluation instrument and outcomes. The mean score for the validity domain was 1.05 out of 3, with 15 articles (31%) scoring zero points on all three items in the domain. The mean score for the outcomes domain was 1.31 out of 3. Twenty-one articles (44%) received the lowest possible score in this domain, indicating that outcomes were measured at the level of satisfaction, attitudes, perceptions, opinions, or general facts, but did not assess knowledge, skills, behaviors, or patient or health care outcomes.

Discussion Characteristics of palliative and end-of-life care educational interventions

To inform curricular development at our own and other medical schools, we undertook a systematic literature review to describe recent curricular innovations in palliative care education for medical students. We also assessed the quality of the evidence for effectiveness of these curricula. We found that emerging approaches in the field vary widely in scope, ranging from stand-alone didactic sessions to longitudinal four-year curricula. Lecture and group discussion were the most commonly cited educational modalities. However, most interventions employed a mix of modalities, with lecture or group discussions used to prepare for, supplement, or debrief a clinical experience, simulation, or role-play. One important pattern that emerged from our review is that palliative care curricula tend to employ a broadly interdisciplinary faculty. Of the 36 articles that specified the profession of the instructors, only 9 were taught by physicians alone. The other instructors included not only nonphysician health professionals (nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, chaplains, psychologists, pharmacists, physical

342

therapists, and massage therapists), but also teachers from nonmedical disciplines such as ethics, law, theology, drama, philosophy, and sociology. Given this wealth of experience in incorporating interdisciplinary faculty, the field of palliative care should serve as a model for how to incorporate nonphysician educators into medical student education to promote interdisciplinary collaboration. One common limitation of the studies included in this review is that many of the curricula were not described in enough detail to be replicated by other educators. For some articles we were unable to ascertain even basic information such as which palliative care topics were covered or who served as the instructors. As medical educators look to the literature to design their own curricula, this is an important limitation, which likely results from the space constraints of academic journals. One way to address this would be to include online supplemental materials that provide detailed descriptions of educational objectives, content, format, and educational materials. For example, Radwany, et al. addressed this issue effectively even for their complex, longitudinal, four-year intervention.40 Within the text of the article they provided a broad curriculum map and general description of the curriculum format and content. They then included two additional files, which contained detailed, replicable descriptions of the components that they considered to be ‘‘cornerstones’’ of their curriculum: a mandatory hospice experience and a case-based group discussion prior to graduation. Another limitation of the sample is the narrow scope of many of the curricula, most of which evaluate the immediate effect of a single teaching session or circumscribed clinical experience. Because the field of palliative care encompasses such breadth of content that spans many medical specialties, more studies should evaluate palliative care curricula longitudinally as students engage the topics within the context of their general medical curriculum. For example, Morrison, et al. used a waitlist-control crossover design to demonstrate improvements in students’ knowledge and attitudes following a palliative care curriculum that spanned the entire third year of medical school.34 Even for smaller-scale interventions, educators should assess the long-term retention of learning objectives whenever possible. For example, Stevens, et al. demonstrated that students who participated in their pain management curriculum performed better on pain management domains of a clinical skills exam 1.5 years later.48 Study quality

In recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on improving the methodological rigor of medical education research. Cook and Bordage have found that many essential elements of scientific reporting are frequently absent from articles describing medical education experiments.58 The MERSQI was developed by Reed and colleagues in 2007 as a measure of rigor for experimental studies in medical education, and has been shown to correlate well with expert quality ratings, number of citations, and journal impact factor.9 We used this instrument to assess the quality of our sample of recent studies in palliative care. The studies in our sample had a mean MERSQI score of 9.9 (standard deviation 2.7, range 5–15). This result is quite

DECOSTE-LOPEZ ET AL.

similar to the mean of 9.95 (standard deviation 2.34, range 5– 16) from the first reported MERSQI sample, which was a broad, interdisciplinary sample of 210 medical education studies published between 2002 and 2003.9 More recently, systematic reviews of medical education in topic areas unrelated to palliative care that utilized MERSQI have reported mean scores ranging from 9.0 to 11.4.59–66 Overall, this suggests that palliative care education studies are of similar methodological quality to other medical education studies. We found that within our sample most studies received high scores in the domain of data analysis. This indicates that the authors go beyond descriptive analysis to assess statistical significance of the effectiveness of their intervention and that the data analysis methods used are appropriate. Another area of strength was the ‘‘response rate’’ item within the sampling domain, indicating that the authors’ conclusions are based on a representative sample of the students exposed to the intervention. However, also within the sampling domain, the item ‘‘number of institutions studied’’ was the MERSQI item most likely to receive the lowest possible score. In fact, only one study in our sample implemented and evaluated their intervention with students from more than one institution. This aspect of study quality has important implications for generalizing study findings, and future researchers should endeavor to collaborate with other institutions to test the intervention in multiple settings or with multiple student populations. While multiple-institution collaboration is extremely difficult for implementing longitudinal, integrated curricula, it would be feasible for short-term, discrete interventions. For example, Tsai, et al. were able to implement a four-hour curriculum including a lecture, a hospice patient visit, communication skills practice, and group discussion with students in attendance from three local medical schools.52 Because trainees’ self-assessments of their skills may not predict the patient’s assessment of the interaction, it is important that educators measure behavioral and patient outcomes, rather than relying solely on student assessments to demonstrate the effectiveness of a curriculum. However, in our sample the vast majority of studies (35 out of 39, 90%) measured outcomes either at the level of satisfaction, perceptions, and attitudes (usually measured by self-assessment on a Likert scale) or at the level of knowledge acquisition (usually measured by multiple-choice examination). Three studies (8%) measured student behaviors, with two measuring behaviors in a simulated patient encounter and one measuring self-reported communication behaviors. Only one study (3%) assessed a patient outcome: Green and Levi measured patient satisfaction after a medical student assisted the patient in filling out an advance directive.22 Because many of the educational interventions being studied already involve direct patient care, it would likely be feasible in future studies to incorporate patient outcomes into the evaluation. Finally, validity of the evaluation instrument was a clear weakness in study quality. Fifteen studies reported no attempt to establish validity of their instrument regarding internal structure, content, or relationship to other variables. Instead, most studies relied upon surveys created by the authors, which did not undergo any formal development process. One positive example in this domain was the study by Chang, et al., who developed their instrument to measure changes in

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PALLIATIVE CARE CURRICULA

palliative care knowledge and attitudes before and after a five-day course. They began with a literature review, piloted the initial form of the instrument, retained only the most reliable items for the final instrument, and calculated the relationship between attitude scores, knowledge scores, and demographic data.13

343

6. 7.

Limitations

One limitation of this review is that our methods only assessed the quality of the subset of studies that included quantitative analysis. In the fields of medical education and palliative care, qualitative analysis of data such as focus groups, interviews, open-answer survey responses, and written reflections form the core of many studies. In our sample, 9 of the 48 studies reported qualitative data alone, and another 13 studies used mixed quantitative and qualitative methods. Our review does not speak to the methodological rigor of these qualitative analyses. Another limitation of our review is that our database searches did not include items published in peer-reviewed repositories of educational products, such as MedEdPortal, which are often used for reporting and dissemination of curricula across medical schools.

8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

Conclusions

Many recent innovations have been made in the field of palliative care education for medical students, representing a variety of learner levels, settings, educational modalities, and topics. One strength of palliative care education is the incorporation of interdisciplinary faculty, which should serve as a model for interdisciplinary collaboration in other parts of the medical curriculum. Future innovations in the field should endeavor to collaborate across multiple institutions, integrate more longitudinal curricula and study longer-term outcomes, make use of better-validated measures of effectiveness, and assess higher-level outcomes including skills, behaviors, and impact on patient care. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lauren Maggio for her guidance regarding systematic review methodology. This work was funded by the Medical Scholars program at Stanford University School of Medicine.

14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

Author Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

20.

References

1. Field MJ, Cassel CK: Approaching death: Improving care at the end of life. Health Prog 1997;92:25. 2. Dickinson GE: Thirty-five years of end-of-life issues in US medical schools. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2011;28:412–417. 3. Liaison Committee on Medical Education: ‘‘Functions and Structure of a Medical School: Standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the MD Degree.’’ Liaison Committee on Medical Education, 2012. 4. Horowitz R, Gramling R, Quill T: Palliative care education in U.S. medical schools. Med Educ 2014;48:59–66. 5. Schaefer KG, Chittenden EH, Sullivan AM, et al.: Raising the bar for the care of seriously ill patients: Results of a

21.

22. 23.

national survey to define essential palliative care competencies for medical students and residents. Acad Med 2014;89:1024–1031. Bickel-Swenson D: End-of-life training in U.S. medical schools: A systematic literature review. J Palliat Med 2007; 10:229–235. Case AA, Orrange SM, Weissman DE: Palliative medicine physician education in the United States: A historical review. J Palliat Med 2013;16:230–236. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, et al.: Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA 2007;298:1002–1009. Auret K, Starmer DL: Using Structured Clinical Instruction Modules (SCIM) in teaching palliative care to undergraduate medical students. J Cancer Educ 2008;23:149–155. Bell D, Crawford V: ‘‘Murder or mercy?’’ An innovative module helping UK medical students to articulate their own ethical viewpoints regarding end-of-life decisions. South Med J 2011;104:676–681. Brownfield E, Santen S: A short palliative care experience: Beginning to learn. Med Educ 2009;43:1111–1112. Chang HH, Hu WY, Tsai SS, et al.: Reflections on an endof-life care course for preclinical medical students. J Formos Med Assoc 2009;108:636–643. Chittenden EH, Anderson WG, Lai CJ, O’Sullivan P: An evaluation of interactive web-based curricula for teaching code status discussions. J Palliat Med 2013;16:1070–1073. Corcoran AM, True G, Charles N, Margo KL: Geriatric palliative care: Do medical students’ narrative reflections after a hospice clinical experience link to geriatric competencies? Gerontol Geriatr Educ 2013;34:329–341. Dando N, d’Avray L, Colman J, et al.: Evaluation of an interprofessional practice placement in a UK in-patient palliative care unit. Palliat Med 2012;26:178–184. Ellman MS, Rosenbaum JR, Cherlin E, Bia M: Effectiveness of an integrated ward-based program in preparing medical students to care for patients at the end of life. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2009;26:18–23. Ellman MS, Schulman-Green D, Blatt L, et al.: Using online learning and interactive simulation to teach spiritual and cultural aspects of palliative care to interprofessional students. J Palliat Med 2012;15:1240–1247. Gadoud A, Adcock Y, Jones L, et al.: ‘‘It’s not all doom and gloom:’’ Perceptions of medical students talking to hospice patients. J Palliat Med 2013;16:1125–1129. Goldberg GR, Gliatto P, Karani R: Effect of a 1-week clinical rotation in palliative medicine on medical school graduates’ knowledge of and preparedness in caring for seriously ill patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:1724– 1729. Goldsmith J, Wittenberg-Lyles E, Shaunfield S, SanchezReilly S: Palliative care communication curriculum: What can students learn from an unfolding case? Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2011;28:236–241. Green MJ, Levi BH: Teaching advance care planning to medical students with a computer-based decision aid. J Cancer Educ 2011;26:82–91. Hall P, Marshall D, Weaver L, et al.: A method to enhance student teams in palliative care: Piloting the McMasterOttawa Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter. J Palliat Med 2011;14:744–750.

344

24. Head BA, Earnshaw LA, Greenberg RB, et al.: ‘‘I will never forget:’’ What we learned from medical student reflections on a palliative care experience. J Palliat Med 2012;15:535–541. 25. Hegedus K, Zana A, Szabo G: Effect of end of life education on medical students’ and health care workers’ death attitude. Palliat Med 2008;22:264–269. 26. Jacoby LH, Beehler CJ, Balint JA: The impact of a clinical rotation in hospice: Medical students’ perspectives. J Palliat Med 2011;14:59–64. 27. Jeffrey EJ, Goddard J, Jeffrey D: Performance and palliative care: A drama module for medical students. Med Humanit 2012;38:110–114. 28. Kato Y, Akiyama M, Itoh F, Ida H: A study investigating the need and impact of pediatric palliative care education on undergraduate medical students in Japan. J Palliat Med 2011;14:560–562. 29. Kaufert J, Wiebe R, Schwartz K, et al.: End-of-life ethics and disability: Differing perspectives on case-based teaching. Med Health Care Philos 2010;13:115–126. 30. Kitzes JA, Kalishman S, Kingsley DD, et al.: Palliative medicine Death Rounds: small group learning on a vital subject. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2008;25:483–491. 31. Korzeniewska-Eksterowicz A, Kedzierska B, CynkerMcCarthy M, et al.: Pediatric palliative care education for medical students: Development and evaluation of a pilot program. J Palliat Care 2012;28:252–258. 32. Lubimir KT, Wen AB: Towards cultural competency in end-of-life communication training. Hawaii Med J 2011;70:239–241. 33. Mason SR, Ellershaw JE: Undergraduate training in palliative medicine: Is more necessarily better? Palliat Med 2010;24:306–309. 34. Morrison LJ, Thompson BM, Gill AC: A required thirdyear medical student palliative care curriculum impacts knowledge and attitudes. J Palliat Med 2012;15:784–789. 35. Murtagh C, Mannion E, Flaherty G, Weldron D: End-oflife enhancement: A novel introduction of medical students to palliative medicine. J Palliat Med 2012;15:965–966. 36. Nwosu A, Mason S, Roberts A, Hugel H: The evaluation of a peer-led question-writing task. Clin Teach 2013;10:151– 154. 37. Oliver D, Jezek D: Palliative care education in Zagreb: An assessment of the effectiveness of an undergraduate course. Croat Med J 2013;54:212–213. 38. Philip S, Remlabeevi A: Teaching community-based palliative care to medical students. Med Educ 2010;44:1136– 1137. 39. Pinheiro TR, De Benedetto MA, Levites MR, et al.: Teaching palliative care to residents and medical students. Fam Med 2010;42:580–582. 40. Radwany SM, Stovsky EJ, Frate DM, et al.: A 4-year integrated curriculum in palliative care for medical undergraduates. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2011;28:528–535. 41. Sanchez-Reilly SE, Wittenberg-Lyles EM, Villagran MM: Using a pilot curriculum in geriatric palliative care to improve communication skills among medical students. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2007;24:131–136. 42. Schillerstrom JE, Sanchez-Reilly S, O’Donnell L: Improving student comfort with death and dying discussions through facilitated family encounters. Acad Psychiatry 2012;36:188–190. 43. Schulz C, Moller MF, Seidler D, Schnell MW: Evaluating an evidence-based curriculum in undergraduate palliative

DECOSTE-LOPEZ ET AL.

44.

45. 46.

47. 48.

49.

50.

51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56.

57.

58. 59. 60. 61.

care education: Piloting a phase II exploratory trial for a complex intervention. BMC Med Educ 2013;13:1. Shih CY, Hu WY, Lee LT, et al.: Effect of a compassionfocused training program in palliative care education for medical students. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2013;30:114– 120. Silk H, Weber CM, Dubreuil M: Enhancing the hospice curriculum within the family medicine clerkship. Fam Med 2009;41:240–242. Sorta-Bilajac I, Brkanac D, Brozovic B, et al.: Influence of the ‘‘Rijeka model’’ of bioethics education on attitudes of medical students towards death and dying: A cross sectional study. Coll Antropol 2007;31:1151–1157. Stecho W, Khalaf R, Prendergast P, et al.: Being a hospice volunteer influenced medical students’ comfort with dying and death: A pilot study. J Palliat Care 2012;28:149–156. Stevens DL, King D, Laponis R, et al.: Medical students retain pain assessment and management skills long after an experiential curriculum: A controlled study. Pain 2009; 145:319–324. Tai V, Cameron-Taylor E, Clark K: A mixed methodology retrospective analysis of the learning experience of final year medical students attached to a 1-week intensive palliative care course based at an Australian university. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2013;23. Tan A, Ross SP, Duerksen K: Death is not always a failure: Outcomes from implementing an online virtual patient clinical case in palliative care for family medicine clerkship. Med Educ Online 2013;18:22711. Tchorz KM, Binder SB, White MT, et al.: Palliative and end-of-life care training during the surgical clerkship. J Surg Res 2013;185:97–101. Tsai SS, Hu WY, Chang HH, et al.: Effects of a multimodule curriculum of palliative care on medical students. J Formos Med Assoc 2008;107:326–333. von Gunten CF, Mullan P, Nelesen RA, et al.: Development and evaluation of a palliative medicine curriculum for thirdyear medical students. J Palliat Med 2012;15:1198–1217. Weber CM, Mascagna KB: Hospice arts: An elective in medical humanism. Fam Med 2008;40:704–706. Weber M, Braun J, Schildmann J: Effects of a ninetyminute teaching module for fourth-year medical students on a palliative care ward with student-patient encounter. J Palliat Med 2011;14:940–944. Wechter E, O’Gorman DC, Singh MK, et al.: The effects of an early observational experience on medical students’ attitudes toward end-of-life care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2013. [E-pub ahead of print.] Yardley S, Hookey C, Lefroy J: Designing whole-task learning opportunities for integrated end-of-life care: A practitioner-derived enquiry. Educ Prim Care 2013;24:436– 443. Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G: Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review. Med Educ 2007;41:737–745. Rosenman ED, Shandro JR, Ilgen JS, et al.: Leadership training in health care action teams: A systematic review. Acad Med 2014;89:1295–1306. Kothari D, Gourevitch MN, Lee JD, et al.: Undergraduate medical education in substance abuse: A review of the quality of the literature. Acad Med 2011;86:98–112. Batt-Rawden SA, Chisolm MS, Anton B, Flickinger TE: Teaching empathy to medical students: An updated, systematic review. Acad Med 2013;88:1171–1177.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PALLIATIVE CARE CURRICULA

62. Kirkman MA, Ahmed M, Albert AF, et al.: The use of simulation in neurosurgical education and training. J Neurosurg 2014;121:228–246. 63. Mookherjee S, Pheatt L, Ranji SR, Chou CL: Physical examination education in graduate medical education: A systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 2013;28:1090–1099. 64. Eaton JE, Reed DA, Aboff BM, et al.: Update in internal medicine residency education: A review of the literature in 2010 and 2011. J Grad Med Educ 2013;5:203–210. 65. Quartey NK, Ma PH, Chung VC, Griffiths SM: Complementary and alternative medicine education for medical profession: Systematic review. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2012;2012:656812.

345

66. Windish DM, Reed DA, Boonyasai RT, et al.: Methodological rigor of quality improvement curricula for physician trainees: A systematic review and recommendations for change. Acad Med 2009;84:1677–1692.

Address correspondence to: Jennifer DeCoste-Lopez Stanford University Office of Student Affairs 251 Campus Drive Stanford, CA 94305 E-mail: [email protected]

(Appendix follows /)

346

Taiwan

United States Clinical

Chang, et al. 2009

Chittenden, et al. 2013 Corcoran, et al. 2013 Dando, et al. 2012

Goldsmith, et al. 2011

HPM physicians, nurse, social workers, chaplain None

Unspecified

HPM physicians, nonHPM physician, nurses, pharmacist Physician, nurse, ethicist, theologian, attorney

Instructors

Online

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Classroom

Classroom

Setting

United States Clinical

Clinical

HPM physicians, Clinical, classroom nurse, social worker, chaplain, massage therapist HPM physician, nonClinical, classroom HPM physicians, nurses, social workers, chaplains, psychologists, patients

Unspecified

Physician, nurse, social Classroom, online worker, chaplain

United States Clinical, preclinical Nurses, social workers, Clinical chaplains United Clinical, also Physician, nurse, Clinical Kingdom nursing, physical physical therapist therapy, and occupational therapy students United States Clinical HPM physician, nonClinical, classroom HPM physicians

Preclinical

United States Clinical, also nursing, social work, and chaplaincy students Gadoud, et al. 2013 United Clinical Kingdom Goldberg, et al. United States Clinical 2011

Ellman, et al. 2012

Ellman, et al. 2009

United States Clinical

Brownfield and Santen 2009

Preclinical

United Kingdom

Bell and Crawford 2011

Clinical

Learner level

Australia

Country

Auret and Starmer 2008

Study

3 weeks

Group discussion, patient care

Lectures, multimedia, patient care

Lectures, group discussion, patient care

Patient care

12 hours

1 week

Unspecified

Written assignment, Variable student presentation, patient care Group discussion, 2 hours online module, simulation

4 hours

45 minutes

1 week

1 week

20–25 hours (over 12 weeks)

2 hours

Duration

Clinical exposure

Lecture, group discussion, written assignment, student presentation, online module, simulation, clinical exposure Lecture, group discussion, patient care Lecture, group discussion, clinical exposure Online module

Group discussion, simulation

Educational modalities

Appendix 1. Summary of Curriculum Characteristics

1, 2, 3, 6, 7

2, 3, 4

Unspecified

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7

1, 2, 3, 7, 8

7

Unspecified

2

4, 5, 6, 7

3, 6

5, 6, 7

1, 2, 3, 6

Topicsa

(continued)

Q

10

Q

10.5

7

5

Q

14

14

10.5

7.5

7

MERSQI Scoreb

347

United Kingdom

Clinical

United Kingdom Croatia

Nwosu, et al. 2013

Oliver and Jezek 2013

Ireland

Murtagh, et al. 2012

Preclinical

Clinical

Preclinical

United States Clinical

Morrison, et al. 2012

Clinical

United Kingdom

United States Clinical

Poland

United States Clinical

Mason and Ellershaw 2010

KorzeniewskaEksterowicz, et al. 2012 Lubimir and Wen 2011

Kitzes, et al. 2008

Clinical Preclinical

Clinical and preclinical

Preclinical, also health care professionals United States Clinical

Hungary

HPM physician

Physician

HPM physicians

HPM physicians, interdisciplinary health professionals

Unspecified

Unspecified

HPM physicians, nonHPM physicians Physicians, psychologist

Unspecified Physicians, patients

HPM physicians, drama educators

Unspecified

Unspecified

Physicians, nurses, interdisciplinary health professionals Unspecified

Clinical, also interprofessional students United States Clinical

Canada

Instructors None

Learner level

United States Preclinical

Country

Kato, et al. 2011 Japan Kaufert, et al. 2010 Canada

Jeffrey, et al. 2012

Jacoby, et al. 2011

Hegedus, et al. 2008

Head, et al. 2012

Green and Levi 2011 Hall, et al. 2011

Study

Classroom

Online

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom, online

Clinical, classroom

Classroom

Classroom

Classroom

Classroom Classroom

Classroom

Clinical

Classroom

Clinical

Classroom

Clinical, online

Setting

Educational modalities Duration

Lectures, group discussion, multimedia

Group discussion, written assignment, simulation Lecture, group discussion, student presentation, patient care Lectures, group discussion, written assignment, student presentation, online module, clinical exposure Lecture, reading assignments, student presentation, clinical exposure Written assignment

Lecture, group discussion

Lecture, reading assignments, written assignment, patient care Drama performance, group discussion, reading assignment, written assignment Lecture Lecture, group discussion Group discussion

Written assignment, patient care Lectures

3 days

11–59 minutes

15 hours (over 10 weeks)

8 hours (over 46 weeks)

2 or 4 weeks

3 hours

10 hours

4 hours

1 hour 4 hours

2 weeks

1 week

Unspecified

1 week

Online module, patient Variable care Group discussion, 3 hours simulation

Appendix 1. (Continued)

1, 2, 3, 4, 6

Unspecified

1, 4, 6, 7

1, 4, 6, 7

2, 5

2, 4, 5

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8

3, 6 4, 5

2

1, 2, 6, 7

2, 3, 4, 6

2, 3, 8

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

2, 5

Topicsa

(continued)

7.5

7

11

13

10.5

6

7

8.5

10 Q

Q

Q

11

Q

8

15

MERSQI Scoreb

348

United States Clinical

Taiwan

United States Clinical

Croatia

Canada

Shih, et al. 2013

Silk, et al. 2009

Sorta-Bilajac, et al. 2007

Stecho, et al. 2012

Tai, et al. 2013

Australia

Clinical

Stevens, et al. 2009 United States Preclinical

Preclinical

Preclinical

Preclinical

Germany

Schulz, et. al. 2013

Clinical

Schillerstrom, et al. United States Preclinical 2012

Sanchez-Reilly, et al. 2007

Radwany, et al. 2011

Preclinical

Learner level Nurses, hospice volunteers

Instructors

Physician, ethicist, theologian, philosopher, sociologist, attorney Nurse, hospice volunteers HPM physicians, nonHPM physicians, nurses Unspecified

HPM physicians, interdisciplinary health professionals Unspecified faculty, nurses

HPM physicians, nurses, social workers, chaplains, psychologists, patients HPM physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, interdisciplinary health professionals Unspecified

Unspecified Not specified medical students, also residents United States Clinical and Physicians, preclinical interdisciplinary health professionals

India

Country

Pinheiro, et al. 2010 Brazil

Philip and Remblabeevi 2010

Study

Clinical, classroom

Classroom

Clinical, classroom

Classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical

Clinical, classroom

Setting

Educational modalities

Lectures, group discussion, simulation Lectures, group discussion, patient care

Lectures, patient care

Lectures, group discussion, simulation, written assignment, clinical exposure. Lectures, simulation, multimedia, clinical exposure Lecture, group discussion, simulation, multimedia, clinical exposure Lectures, multimedia, written assignment, student presentation

Lecture, group discussion

Lecture, group discussion, simulation, multimedia, clinical exposure Reading assignments, written assignment, patient care Lectures, group discussion, simulation, written assignments, clinical exposure Lectures, written assignments

Appendix 1. (Continued)

1 week

10 hours

30–40 hours

7.5 hours

7.5 hours

1 day

23 hours (over 2 semesters)

4 hours

8 hours (over 4 weeks)

4 years

Variable

3 days

Duration

3, 4, 5

1, 2, 3

Unspecified

4, 5, 6

2, 6

1, 2, 5, 7

1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8

6

1, 2, 6, 7, 8

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Unspecified

2, 6, 7

Topicsa

(continued)

12

14

10

10.5

9

13

10.5

9

13

6.5

Q

6

MERSQI Scoreb

349

United States Clinical

United States Preclinical

Germany

von Gunten, et al. 2012

Weber and Mascagna 2008

Weber, et al. 2011

Unspecified

Classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Clinical, classroom

Online Classroom

Setting

Arts activity or performance, group discussion, written assignment, student presentation, clinical exposure Lecture, group discussion, clinical exposure Group discussion, reading assignments, clinical exposure Lecture, group discussion, simulation

Online module Group discussion, multimedia, simulation Lecture, group discussion, reading assignment, clinical exposure Lectures, simulation, patient care

Educational modalities

7 hours

4 hours

1.5 hours

Unspecified

4 days (over 4 weeks)

4 hours

Variable 2 hours

Duration

1, 2, 3, 5, 6

2, 4, 5, 6, 8

4, 6, 8

6

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

2, 5, 6

1, 3, 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Topicsa

7

9.5

9.5

Q

13

14

11 11

MERSQI Scoreb

a Palliative and End-of-Life Care topics are listed only if they were specifically reported in the article. Coding is as follows: 1 = patient assessment, 2 = communication, 3 = pain and symptom management, 4 = addressing psychosocial and spiritual needs, 5 = ethics and the law, 6 = role in the health care system, 7 = interdisciplinary teamwork, 8 = self-care. b Q indicates that the study was qualitative, and did not receive a MERSQI score. HPM, hospice and palliative medicine; MERSQI, Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument.

Clinical

HPM physicians

Wechter, et al. 2013 United States Preclinical

Yardley, et al. 2013 United Kingdom

HPM physicians

HPM physicians, nurses, social workers, chaplains HPM physician

HPM physicians

None Non-HPM physicians, ethicist

Instructors

Preclinical

Preclinical

Taiwan

Tsai, et al. 2008

Learner level

Canada Clinical United States Clinical

Country

Tan, et al. 2013 Tchorz, et al. 2013

Study

Appendix 1. (Continued)

Copyright of Journal of Palliative Medicine is the property of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.