New ways to impact primary palliative care practices using online continuing education

Abstract

Background:

Healthcare professionals trained in palliative care (PC) improve satisfaction and decrease healthcare overutilization for patients with serious illness and their families. A continuing education (CE) series on primary PC aligned to the National Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality PC was developed by local, interdisciplinary experts for a target audience of rural, primary care healthcare professionals. The modules were accessed on an online learning management system platform.

Objective:

The study objectives were to assess differences in participants’ knowledge, competence, performance, and ability to improve patient care as well as commitment to change practice after taking each of the CE modules.

Design and Methods:

To achieve these objectives, a descriptive design was used with a convenience sample of healthcare professionals who registered for the CE series and completed at least one module. Participants completed demographic questions and an evaluation survey after completing each module.

Results:

So far, 158 healthcare professionals have registered for the series with the majority being nurses and social workers. Although the professionals reported having extensive healthcare experience, they did not report having the same level of PC experience. The professionals represent nine different states. All the CE modules increased teamwork skills for most participants. The CE modules on cultural aspects and self-care had the biggest influence on participants’ ability to improve patient outcomes. Cultural aspects, care of the actively dying, and advance care planning had the greatest impact on participants’ knowledge, competence, and performance.

Conclusion:

The primary PC education series improved self-reported skills in teamwork, practice habits, and meeting goals of healthcare professionals from a variety of disciplines and settings. These enhanced primary PC skills will improve the incorporation of PC into a variety of practice settings, by multiple disciplines to enhance access to PC outside of, and potentially referrals to, specialty PC programs.

Palliative care (PC) is an emerging field of healthcare aimed at positively affecting patients living with serious illness and their families. An important factor that influences a health professional’s successful delivery of PC may be their knowledge, experiences, and confidence. PC training provided to healthcare professionals improves patients’ and healthcare professionals’ satisfaction and reduces healthcare expenditures through cost savings and cost avoidance.^1,2

Keywords

continuing education enduring material on demand online primary palliative care

Background

Primary care clinics are often the first point of contact in managing patients living with serious illness. The healthcare professionals often have developed long-term relationships and know the family and background of the patients; this is particularly true in the rural settings.³ Rural residents have less access to specialty PC services when compared with urban residents.^4,5 At times, healthcare professionals in rural regions must coordinate with specialty professionals to manage more complex or difficult cases. This is especially true for patients living with serious illness given the complexity associated with identifying resources to assist with coordination of care in a rural setting. Common challenges are specialty professionals not being familiar with local resources and patients traveling great distances to access resources.⁶

Continuing professional development is a responsibility of all healthcare professionals; however, there are many barriers impacting rural healthcare professionals’ ability to obtain necessary continuing education (CE). These barriers include long travel distances to attend education modules, geographic isolation, lack of financial support, and inadequate staffing.⁷ The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic further highlighted the difficulty in obtaining adequate CE with limited face-to-face education opportunities available; thus, healthcare professionals were prompted to seek online training and education to meet the requirements of their profession.⁴

In 2018, the South Dakota Palliative Care Network (SDPCN) conducted focus groups with healthcare professionals, patients, and families across the state of South Dakota to better understand the perceptions and needs of PC, especially in rural areas. A key finding of this study was that many patients, families, and healthcare professionals do not understand PC and how it differs from hospice care.⁸ To address this finding, the SDPCN received a Rural Health Network Development (RHND) grant which pulled together partners from clinical practice and academia to focus on increasing PC awareness and knowledge⁹ with a consistent approach and message, including a standard definition. The first step was the collaborative development of 11 free, online learning modules for CE focusing on primary PC. Primary PC is defined as ‘Palliative care that is delivered by health care professionals who are not palliative care specialists . . . [and] are not certified in palliative care’.¹⁰

Primary care clinicians must be competent in primary PC skills¹¹ and have a duty to provide primary PC wherever they practice.¹² Primary PC skills are best learned from those who are trained and work as part of a specialty PC team. Fellowship trained physicians, certified advanced practice providers, and their team members have additional knowledge, skill, and expertise in the care of patients living with serious illness and their families. In challenging the norm of offering education only in a face-to-face setting, the RHND grant allowed the project team to develop and offer online CE modules. Participation included CE credits for multiple disciplines and access to additional resources.

Development of the continuing education series

A CE planning committee was formed to meet the requirements of Joint Accreditation Standards for Interprofessional Continuing Education,¹³ including representation from multiple disciplines, a variety of practice locations, and different health systems. With a goal of creating accessible, high-quality education, the CE modules were created for rural, primary care healthcare professionals wanting to learn about PC. A significant need for PC training was identified, as PC delivery lacks consistency when incorporated into primary care. The professional practice gaps identified for current healthcare professionals were not knowing:

The difference between PC and hospice.

What benefits PC can provide patients and families.

Having the knowledge and skills to incorporate PC into primary care.

To determine the best design for the educational series on primary PC addressing the mentioned practice gaps, the CE planning committee identified three necessary items for the education: (1) Recruit local experts in the topic area to ensure applicability to the state’s frontier and rural areas; (2) Complete disclosures to mitigate conflicts of interest; and (3) Develop evidence-based education. The committee decided to base the CE series on the latest edition of the National Consensus Project Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality PC 4th ed (NCP Guidelines).¹² The CE planning committee also determined the large-scale education series desired it to be available from a single access site versus education scattered among the individual member organizations would be most impactful. Using the framework of the eight domains from the clinical practice guidelines,¹² the content was divided into CE modules that were approximately 1 h in length. With the intent of creating education relevant for several healthcare disciplines, the type of CE credit offered varied based on the professions the education was targeted to reach (Table 1).

Table 1.

CE module descriptions for primary PC series.

Module title	Clinical practice domain	Description	Content expert	Release date	CE credit offered
What is PC?	Domain 1: structure and processes of care	Basics of palliative medicine/care	Certified nurse practitioner with a certification in hospice and PC	15 September 2021	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Advanced care planning what, why, when, & how	Domain 1: structure and processes of care	The factors and impact of advance care planning and recommend next steps	MSW, CSW-PIP with advanced hospice and PC certification	11 January 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Goals of care conversation	Domain 1: structure and processes of care	Provides a review and describes the multiple factors that impact goals of care conversation and provide next steps	Fellowship trained PC physician	11 January 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Physical aspects of PC	Domain 2: physical aspects of care	Addresses the physical aspects of palliative care, including common disease processes, screening tools, and symptom management	Certified nurse practitioner with a certification in hospice and PC	17 January 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Pharmacy (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Social aspects of care and the importance of a psychosocial assessment	Domain 4: social aspects of care	The multiple psychosocial factors that impact outcomes in palliative care and provide recommendation for assessment and intervention	MSW, CSW-PIP with an advanced hospice and PC certification The second expert at MSW and certified in hospice and PC	17 January 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Introduction to the incorporation of basic ethics principles into the provision of primary PC	Domain 8: ethical and legal aspects of care	A brief introduction to basic ethics principles in primary PC. Review standard clinical ethics principles and framework to integrate clinical ethics considerations	Medical doctor with over 20 years in primary care. Also, a master’s degree in health care Ethics and board certified in Hospice and PC and Family Medicine	17 January 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Spiritual, religious and existential aspects of PC	Domain 5: spiritual, religious, and existential aspects of care	Provide an understanding of spiritual, religious and existential aspects of palliative care	Doctor of Ministry and an EdD in Pastoral Community Counseling. Board-Certified Chaplain and a published author	22 March 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Inequities in PC and hospice care	Domain 6: cultural aspects of care	An introduction to understanding of inequities in palliative and hospice care	PhD prepared RN with advanced education in anthropology American Indian Studies and certified in hospice and PC	12 April 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Pharmacy (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Self-care in PC	Domain 1: structure and processes of care	Demonstrates the importance of self-care, an understanding of burnout and compassion fatigue and their relation to PC	A master’s prepared clinical psychologist, and in preparation of doctor of philosophy, in mental health	12 April 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Great Plains Native American Culture (Spiritual/Psychosocial) Lens on PC	Domain 6: cultural aspects of care	Information about the Great Plain tribes’ customs, beliefs, and protocols as it relates to PC. Strategies and guidance on how to apply to the healthcare setting	A master’s prepared Mental Health instructor, Certified Chemical Dependency Counselor II, and a trainer in cultural norms, customs, and values of Native American Tribes in the Great Plain region	31 May 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)
Care of the actively dying patient	Domain 7: care of the patient nearing the end of life	Depict what caring for a person nearing the end of life, or actively dying and techniques on how to apply to provide whole person care in any healthcare setting	A fellowship trained PC physician	18 July 2022	Nursing (ANCC), Nursing Facility Administrator (SD Board), Pharmacy (SD Board), Physician (ACCME), Social Work (SD Board)

PC, palliative care; MSW, master of social work; CSW-PIP, certified social worker in private, independent practice.

The initial educational delivery design was to have live presentations which would be recorded and available for on-demand learning on an online learning management system (LMS) platform. This decision to offer online on-demand education delivery was changed due to the geographical area of the target audience, which represents the entire state of South Dakota as well as the financial and time constraints it would put on facilities to offer live modules for in-person learning. In addition, the large geographical distances from urban facilities to rural facilities with content experts continued to justify the value of online education delivery.

The goal of the CE planning committee was to have the first live session by July 2021; however, the COVID-19 pandemic offered additional constraints. The presenter for the first session was rescheduled multiple times due to practice obligations. Due to the new demand COVID-19 had placed on healthcare, the planning committee pivoted how the education was going to be offered. Instead of having both live and on-demand education, the change was made to only offer online on-demand education as it allows for the greatest flexibility for speakers as well as the greatest access for the healthcare professionals. The first education offering in the series was launched on 15 September 2021. Ultimately, 10 additional modules were recorded and placed on the LMS platform and offered at no cost with open access at any time for healthcare professionals who want to learn more about primary PC.

An important part of the educational evaluation was functionality of learning and evaluation, which is measured by the commitment to change evaluation section. This evaluation section provides information regarding what participants learn right away and long-term changes participants plan to make to their practice or approach to practice and ultimately, if successful incorporation of those changes into their practice.

Once education was created, the next step was making others aware of the free educational series. Marketing the series started through the SDPCN quarterly newsletter to over 250 members. Marketing was augmented by the directors of the SDPCN presenting to almost 1000 people in the upper Midwest and the CE planning committee members sharing through their own networks, key collaborators in PC, and healthcare settings. The opportunities to share the PC education series expanded as the network grew and the number of available CE modules increased throughout the study.

Objective

Design and methods

A descriptive research design was conducted to achieve these objectives. A convenience sample of healthcare professionals who registered and completed at least one CE module within the primary PC education series was utilized. The study was determined to be exempt by the Institutional Review Board at the health system that manages the LMS platform.

To meet the Joint Accreditation Standards for Interprofessional Continuing Education,¹³ the post-evaluation survey completed by participants is a standardized survey template required by the CE department. Based on approximately 12,000 participants per year, the survey questions are analyzed by the CE department annually for continuous improvement. The evaluation survey assesses: (1) Effect on teamwork skills (5-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree); (2) Change in knowledge, competence, performance, and ability to improve patient outcomes (Answer choices are: No change, No, Yes); and (3) Meeting professional and personal goals as well as influence on practice habits (5-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree). Learners are also able to enter comments at the end of the evaluation survey (see Appendix 1).

Data collection

Within the LMS platform, learners were required to register once for the series rather than for each CE module to prevent duplication of data. The registration form contained demographic questions and permission to use their de-identified data in this study (see Appendix 1). Upon completion of the registration form, the learner was sent a code which allowed them to take all CE modules. This code was sent to each learner whether or not they gave permission for their data to be used in this study. Individual CE modules cannot be taken unless they have the code and have registered for the series which facilitated collection of data.

After completion of each CE module, a post-evaluation survey is available to the learner within the CE portal. To earn CE credits, the learner must take this post-evaluation survey, aiding data collection. As part of the initial evaluation, learners identify what changes to their practice they anticipate making and how long it will take to implement. The second phase of evaluation was not required to be completed for the learner to be awarded CE credit. This phase entailed learners being able to select 30, 60, or 90 days at which time the long-term survey was sent to identify what changes to their practice they were able to successfully implement or what barriers they encountered in doing so.

Data analysis

The data for this study were exported from the LMS platform and analyzed for descriptive statistics. The evaluation comments were read for exemplars and constructive feedback of the CE series. Only data from learners who gave permission for their de-identified data to be used in this study were analyzed.

Results

For the period of 15 September 2021 to 30 December 2022, 158 healthcare professionals registered to participate in the primary PC education series. Most of the healthcare professionals were nurses [licensed practical nurses (LPNs), registered nurses (RNs), advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs)] and social workers who worked for the health system that manages the online LMS and practiced in a hospital or clinic setting. The healthcare professionals were mainly Caucasian and 25–44 years old. While 55% of the healthcare professionals reported having 10 years or more of healthcare experience, only 23% reported having 10 years or more of palliative and end-of-life care experience (see Table 2).

Table 2.

CE series registrants’ demographics.

Education registration questionnaire	Nursing	Social workers	APP	Students	Physicians	Pharmacists	Chaplain	Others	Total
Registration	65	34	19	13	7	3	2	15	158
Percentage	41%	22%	12%	8%	4%	2%	1%	9%
Current practice setting	65	34	19	13	7	3	2	15	158	Percentage
Academia	3	1	4	1	1	0	0	0	10	6%
Clinic	13	3	4	3	3	0	0	5	31	20%
Hospice/home health	5	7	0	0	0	0	0	1	13	8%
Hospital	29	15	8	3	3	3	1	1	63	40%
Specialty	4		3	0	0	0	0	0	7	4%
Nursing home	5	2	0	4	0	0	0	0	11	7%
Other	6	6	0	2	0	0	1	8	23	15%
Age	65	34	19	13	7	3	2	15	158	Percentage
<18 years	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1%
18–24 years	5	1	0	6	0	1	0	6	19	12%
25–34 years	17	9	9	3	0	1	0	3	42	27%
35–44 years	15	11	4	2	1	0	0	3	36	23%
45–54 years	11	8	3	2	3	0	0	0	27	17%
55–64 years	13	3	3	0	0	1	2	1	23	15%
65–74 years	3	2	0	0	3	0	0	1	9	6%
75 years and older	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1%
Describe self/race	65	34	19	13	7	3	2	15	158	Percentage
Caucasian	60	31	18	10	4	3	2	12	140	89%
Asian	1	1		0	1	0	0	0	3	2%
Hispanic	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	3	2%
Native American	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	2	5	3%
Black/African American	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2	1%
Other/prefer not to answer	1	1		1	1	0	0	1	5	3%
Healthcare experience	65	34	19	13	7	3	2	15	158	Percentage
None/zero	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	1	4	3%
<1 year	2	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	6	4%
1–2 years	1	2	0	2	0	1	0	3	9	6%
3–5 years	7	3	1	2	1	1	0	1	16	10%
6–10 years	13	8	6	3	0	0	0	5	35	22%
10–20 years	16	12	4	1	1	0	1	2	37	23%
20 years or more	26	7	7	2	5	1	1	2	51	32%
PC and EOL experience	65	34	19	13	7	3	2	15	158	Percentage
None/zero	9	7	3	3	0	2	0	7	31	20%
<1 year	6	5	3	1	0	1	0	3	19	12%
1–2 years	8	2	4	5	0	0	0	0	19	12%
3–5 years	12	5	2	0	2	0	0	1	22	14%
6–10 years	13	8	3	2	0	0	2	2	30	19%
10–20 years	10	5	2	2	3	0	0	2	24	15%
20 years or more	7	2	2	0	2	0	0	0	13	8%

CE, continuing education; EOL, end of life; PC, palliative care; APP, advanced practice provider.

When the healthcare professionals registered for the series, they entered their zip codes which were analyzed to determine the geographical impact of the CE series. Participants were from nine states in the United States (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

States represented by the healthcare professional participants.

To discover the rural and frontier versus urban locations of the participants, zip codes of the participants from South Dakota were grouped according to the state’s 66 counties (see Figure 2). The state is made up of 66 counties. Participants represented 3 urban, 17 of the 25 rural, and 6 of the 38 frontier counties in the state.

Figure 2.

Counties in South Dakota represented by the healthcare professional participants.

Participation in the various modules varied and has been impacted based on how long the module has been available on the LMS platform. The first module to be available on the LMS platform was What is Palliative Care?, which has had the most participation with 76 participants. The next 10 modules became available over the subsequent 10 months with varying numbers of registration and completions of the evaluation (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Number of participants and evaluations per CE module.

	ParticipantsN	Completed evaluationsN (%)
What is PC	76	59 (78)
Advance care planning	20	13 (65)
Goals of care	20	18 (90)
Physical aspects	22	10 (45)
Social aspects	22	14 (64)
Basic ethical principles	27	17 (63)
Spiritual, religious	18	13 (72)
Inequities	21	16 (76)
Self-care in PC	16	12 (75)
Great Plains culture	21	11 (52)
Care actively dying	16	11 (69)
Total	279	194 (70)

CE, continuing education; PC, palliative care.

The first 9 participants who completed the Physical Aspects of Care module had the incorrect evaluation survey attached to their course. Due to this evaluation being different, those participants’ evaluation data was excluded from the analysis. Their completion of the course, however, was reported as a participant in the course.

Teamwork skills were positively impacted by the CE series with 90% or more of the participants indicating these skills increased due to the education. While an unanticipated finding, it is a key finding since quality PC is delivered by an interdisciplinary care team. Table 4 shows participants who indicated they strongly agreed or agreed the CE module enhanced their teamwork skills. Most participants reported being able to apply what they learned in the module to work in a team environment, which included being better able to collaborate and communicate with multidisciplinary teams as well as state how teamwork contributes to patient care.

Table 4.

Impact of education on teamwork.

	I intend to apply the knowledge and skills I have acquired from this activity to my work when in a team environment	I am better able to collaborate with a multidisciplinary team	I am better to communicate with other members of a multidisciplinary team as a result of what I learned in this activity	I am better able to discuss how teamwork can contribute to continuous and reliable patient care
What is PC	92%	90%	90%	88%
Advance care planning	92%	77%	92%	100%
Goals of care	95%	95%	95%	95%
Physical aspects	90%	90%	90%	80%
Social aspects	93%	93%	93%	93%
Basic ethical principles	94%	88%	88%	75%
Spiritual, religious	92%	77%	85%	92%
Inequities in PC and hospice	94%	81%	81%	81%
Self-care in PC	75%	92%	92%	92%
Great Plains culture	100%	91%	91%	91%
Care actively dying	100%	91%	91%	100%
Total average	92.5%	87.7%	89.8%	89.7%

PC, palliative care.

The CE module on Great Plains Native American Culture demonstrated the greatest impact on participants’ self-reported increase of knowledge, competence, and performance as well as ability to improve patient outcomes. The second highest impact in participants’ self-reported increase of knowledge, competence, and performance was related to the CE module on Care of the Actively Dying, followed by Advance Care Planning. The CE module on Self-Care showed the second greatest impact on participants’ self-reported ability to improve patient outcomes followed by Advance Care Planning and Spiritual/Religious Aspects of Care (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Impact of education on self-reported clinical performance.

	Activity increased my knowledge	Activity increased my competence	Activity increased my performance	This will improve my patient outcomes
What is PC	49%	41%	47%	37%
Advance care planning	62%	46%	54%	46%
Goals of care	39%	44%	44%	39%
Physical aspects	60%	30%	40%	40%
Social aspects	29%	21%	29%	29%
Basic ethical principles	44%	38%	38%	25%
Spiritual, religious	46%	31%	38%	46%
Inequities in PC and hospice	44%	19%	31%	25%
Self-care in PC	33%	33%	50%	50%
Great Plains culture	73%	73%	55%	73%
Care actively dying	64%	55%	55%	45%
Total average	49.4%	39.2%	43.7%	41.4%

PC, palliative care.

Participants who indicated they agree or strongly agreed to the questions ‘How well did this educational offering meet my professional development goals?’, ‘Is the content of this activity likely to influence your practice habits?’, and ‘Were your personal objectives met?’ are shown in Table 6. Overall, participants indicated the education met their professional development goals (76.9%), will influence their practice habits (91.8%), and felt their personal objectives were met (99.4%).

Table 6.

Impact of education on professional and personal goals.

	How well did this educational offering meet my professional development goals?	Is the content of this activity likely to influence your practice habits?	Were your personal objectives met?
What is PC	76%	92%	100%
Advance care planning	62%	92%	100%
Goals of care	83%	89%	100%
Physical aspects	80%	90%	100%
Social aspects	71%	79%	93%
Basic ethical principles	63%	81%	100%
Spiritual, religious aspects	96%	93%	100%
Inequities in PC and hospice	75%	94%	100%
Self-care in PC	50%	100%	100%
Great Plains culture	90%	100%	100%
Care actively dying	100%	100%	100%
Total average	76.9%	91.8%	99.4%

PC, palliative care.

After completing each CE module, participants were asked which areas of practice they were planning to change because of completing the module. Participants were able to select multiple practice areas to change (see Table 7). The changes in practice area with the highest selection were patient education, followed by clinical/patient interprofessional communication and teamwork.

Table 7.

Impact of education on commitment to change.

Module name	Participant who completed CTC evaluation	Commitment to change (CTC) area (select all that apply)	Diagnosis and screening	Treatment	Clinical/patient interprofessional communication	Quality improvement	Safety	Teamwork	Patient education	Other	The average on a scale from 1 to 10, how confident are you that you will be able to make this change? (1 = Not at all to 10 = Completely)
What is PC	55	92	5	6	15	7	2	22	33	2	7.9
Advance care planning	12	13	0	1	4	1	0	2	5	0	7.3
Goals of care	17	22	0	2	8	1	0	3	8	0	8.0
Physical aspects	10	19	3	6	2	1	0	1	6	0	8.2
Social aspects	13	16	0	1	5	2	0	3	4	1	7.3
Basic ethical principles	15	20	1	1	3	3	0	3	6	3	7.5
Spiritual, religious	12	13	0	2	2	2	0	3	3	1	7.5
Inequities in PC and hospice	14	15	0	2	2	3	0	3	4	1	7.1
Self-care in PC	11	14	1	1	1	1	0	4	3	3	7.6
Great Plains culture	11	15	1	3	5	2	0	1	3	0	7.1
Care actively dying	11	12	0	2	3	1	0	1	5	0	8.2
Total	181	251	11	27	50	24	2	46	80	11	7.6 (Average)

PC, palliative care.

Participants were able to choose more than one commitment to change areas.

In addition, participants could add free text comments after completing each CE module which further demonstrates how the modules will impact their practice. Many of these comments focused on asking patients or their families more specific questions related to PC (see Table 8).

Table 8.

Participant quotes on discussing PC with patients and families.

• ‘I plan to initiate questions of faith support in goals of care discussions with families who are struggling with what decision to make’.• ‘I plan to have a more formal structure to my conversations with patient families who are on the fence about aggressive tx [treatment] vs comfort-oriented end goals’.• ‘Ensure upon admission if a patient is able to make their own decisions. If able, talk with them about what they would want to happen to them if they were not able to make their own decisions and who they would want to make those decisions for them’.• ‘This course will allow me to better discuss Palliative care in an informed matter with medical personnel and my teammates’.• ‘Will now better understand responses, body language, punctuality of NA [Native American] living a traditional life style’.

PC, palliative care.

As part of the evaluation, open-ended questions were available for participants to provide feedback for improvement of future CE modules (see Table 9). Many of the positive comments as well as the areas for improvement focused on the value of having engaging education and high-quality presenters. The participants’ self-identified commitments to change their practice were varied, but largely focused around increasing communication and awareness of PC with patients and within their interdisciplinary teams. Upon follow up at the selected 30-, 60-, or 90-day time frame, a few participants were already able to self-report they had successfully changed their practice. The majority who were successful in implementing changes were concentrated around increasing PC communication or discussion and including PC content into nursing programs (see Table 9).

Table 9.

Participant overall feedback.

Positive Comments	• ‘This was excellent, the presenter was very knowledgeable and easy to listen to’.• ‘I appreciated being able to see the presenter’.• ‘Nicely done. Case studies were helpful along with giving examples of how to have conversations’.• ‘A great review on burnout which is so common in this practice. Can apply this info to other aspects of life too’.
Areas for improvement	• ‘Increase case-based scenarios’.• ‘Speaker was a little dry and monotone; also somewhat difficult to hear volume-wise’.
Commitment to change comments: initial evaluation	• ‘I plan to start showing families and patients their illness trajectory for those diagnoses that have tried and true trajectories’.• ‘I plan to speak to our Palliative Care director about what if any screening tools are utilized for the inpatient providers to make referrals; if there are none currently in use, I’d like to see what we can do to remedy that’.• ‘I plan to start by having a more thoughtful conversation with certain patients’.• ‘I plan to do more interviewing and include the resident in medical decision making conversations’.• ‘Focus on non-pharm first prior to the recommendation of pharmacological’.• ‘Make a habit to take at least 15 minutes out of each day to practice mindfulness’.• ‘Being open-minded and using open-ended questions to assess how best to support patients’.• Ask every patient that I work with if they have an advanced directive on file or if they are interested in getting information on how to complete one’.• ‘Increase communication with team members to ensure patients are being educated in order to help out as needed’.• ‘Be continually mindful of cultural stances when working with this population on these sensitive matters’.
Commitment to change comments: follow-up on implementation	• ‘It is becoming easier to discuss the topic in general’.• ‘Assisted nursing students understand the importance of advocating for palliative care’.• ‘Successfully implemented in the classroom setting’.• ‘A higher level of comfort with these conversations’.

Overall, 90% of the healthcare professionals can explain how teamwork contributes to continuous and reliable patient care and 41.4% felt they would be able to improve patient outcomes due to this education. In addition, nearly all participants felt this education would influence their practice habits and it met their personal objectives of participating in the education. Further data collection and analysis will occur; however, these findings are very promising.

Discussion

Alignment of the primary PC education series to the NCP Guidelines¹² promotes access to quality PC by bringing PC knowledge to additional healthcare professionals who will be able to incorporate it into their practice teams. In addition, it fosters consistent standards and encourages continuity of PC across care settings.

The CE planning committee recruited local healthcare experts across different healthcare systems, settings, and disciplines as speakers which promotes shared responsibility across all disciplines for delivery of quality PC. The intention of offering CE credits for several disciplines was effective as participants represented more than six disciplines. Coupling this with the positive impact on teamwork skills by nearly all participants, the primary PC education series promotes interdisciplinary care which is key to quality PC delivery.

The goal of educating rural, primary care healthcare professionals was partially met as two-thirds of the rural counties and six frontier counties had healthcare professionals participate. This education series has the potential to address the known PC access gap in rural areas of the state⁸ by educating healthcare professionals in those areas in primary PC. This is a foundational step on which to build upon to fulfill the SDPCN’s mission to improve access to PC across the state.

An unanticipated finding was that the number of years of healthcare experience was not associated with the number of years of palliative and end-of-life care experience. Their perspective on having less experience in palliative and end-of-life care may be their motivation to participate in the CE series. Due to this reported lack of PC experience, it can be deduced that they are likely practicing outside of a PC setting which was the intended audience for this series. Furthermore, the participants reported the education will likely influence their practice and ability to improve patient outcomes. This is a step toward universal access to PC.

Overall, just under half of the participants self-reported that the CE modules increased their knowledge, competence, and performance. The participants’ experience in PC may have contributed to these evaluation results as 56% of participants had 3 years or more of PC experience (see Table 2). They may have been exposed to this introductory information during their healthcare experience; hence, not reporting the CE modules increased their knowledge, competence, and performance along with meeting their professional development goals.

While the majority of participants did not report an increase in their knowledge, competence, and performance, the vast majority (91.8%) reported the education would influence their practice habits. The target audience for this education was broad with the majority having more than 10 years of healthcare experience, which may explain this contradiction. Another explanation is they had an increase in their comfort in applying existing knowledge or being able to apply existing knowledge in a palliative care context after completing the modules. Other possible explanations are the participants’ interpretation of the questions and motivation for completing the modules which may influence the evaluation responses.

Lessons learned

The CE planning committee’s decision to provide online on-demand education versus live education sessions was challenging as it was a shift from the original planned education delivery format. The committee planning members were unsure as to whether this education delivery method would be well-received by healthcare professionals. Ultimately, the flexibility and cost-effectiveness associated with the online on-demand education sessions may have increased access and allowed healthcare professionals who otherwise may not have been able to attend live sessions to obtain the PC education.

Early engagement with the CE planning committee ensured feasibility of the design and roll out of the education related to the technology available for the project. Thinking about the end objective and how the learners would experience the education from start to finish was key. The first technology-related challenge was collecting participant demographic information once, instead of each time a module was completed. Due to the available technology software, one registration page for the entire series was implemented. After completing the registration page, the participant received an email with an all-access code for the series. As a result of this approach, several questions regarding the access code were received from participants. A second technology-related barrier experienced was the follow-up survey as it did not allow customization which prevented the preference to ask targeted long-term follow-up questions in addition to changes made in their practice. Evaluating the availability and limitations of technology or potential vendor partnerships early was another key in determining educational program functional abilities and required technological support.

Extensive discussion surrounding potential resources on which to base the PC education series occurred throughout the early planning stages. Study results support the decision to base the series on the latest edition of the NCP Guidelines¹² as it was effective in meeting the goals of the education and providing a comprehensive evidence-based PC CE series for healthcare professionals.

Future directions

During the evaluation at the end of each CE module, participants were required to identify an area of their practice they intended to change related to participating in the education. A long-term evaluation was conducted to determine whether they were successful in implementing their change in practice. The first CE modules have been active for over 1 year with 32 participants responding to the long-term evaluation survey. This results in limited long-term evaluation data. This long-term evaluation will continue to be collected and analyzed. One barrier identified with this method was no mechanism to require participants to complete a long-term evaluation as CE credit had already been awarded. To improve the effectiveness of long-term evaluation surveys, future education should include an incentive as well as a brief discussion of the value of the long-term survey to improve data collection and assessing the long-term impact of the education. In addition, discussion with hospitals on the ability to measure increase in PC referrals or plans of care being completed would be valuable to demonstrate adoption into practice and impact on patient outcomes.

To improve the analysis of the effectiveness of the CE modules, future education evaluations should include surveys that are able to separate evaluations by professions, years of healthcare experience, and palliative and end-of-life care experience. Another area for improvement based on the wide range of PC experience of participants would be to create an assessment for learners to identify which areas of PC they have gaps in to create a custom learning plan. This would decrease education time per person and increase impact on areas with the greatest room for improvement.

The module, What is Palliative Care?, has been available the longest and was also the module included in the initial marketing push. Due to the lower participation in other courses as well as the significant participation of only employees who work for the health system that manages the online LMS, current and future marketing strategies should target other health systems, including independent healthcare facilities. These health systems or facilities should create plans to use and market this education to help with adoption and engagement with the content, such as including it as required education for staff. Additional marketing strategies will include focusing on rural and frontier counties of the state, especially those with no participant representation.

Conclusion

The primary PC education series is easy to access, free, and follows the NCP Guidelines¹² which improved self-reported teamwork skills, likelihood of influencing practice habits, and professional and personal goals of healthcare professionals from a variety of disciplines and settings. Hence, the CE series addresses the professional practice gaps identified by the CE planning committee. These enhanced primary PC skills will improve the incorporation of PC into a variety of practice settings by multiple disciplines, which enhances access to PC outside of, and potentially referrals to, specialty PC programs.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the individuals and organizations who are members of the South Dakota Palliative Care Network and have devoted time, input, and efforts to create the CE modules and promote access to CE education in the state and region. We also wish to acknowledge Dr Margie Washnok who was instrumental in the development of the CE education and the Population Health Evaluation Center at South Dakota State University who provided support for the study. Finally, we acknowledge the key additional individuals from the online learning platform, the grant partners, and content experts who produced the CE modules.

Declarations

ORCID iDs

Charlene Berke

Sarah Mollman

Amy Skoglund

References

May

Normand

Cassel

, et al. Economics of palliative care for hospitalized adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 820–829.

Kavalieratos

Corbelli

Zhang

. Association between palliative care and patient and caregiver outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2016; 316: 2104–2114.

Nielsen

Agostina

Gregor

, et al. Addressing rural health challenges head on. Missouri Med J, 2017; 114: 363–366.

McKinlay

Banks

Coleman

, et al. Keeping it going: the importance of delivering interprofessional education during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Prim Health Care 2021; 13: 359–369.

Rural Health Information Hub (RHIH). Rural healthcare workforce, 2020, https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/health-care-workforce

Perrin

Kazanowski

. Overcoming barriers to palliative care consultation. Crit Care Nurse 2015; 35: 44–52.

Fairchild

Everly

Bauer

, et al. Rural nurses’ continuing education needs: a U.S. multi-site survey reveals challenges and opportunities. J Nurs Educ Prac 2013; 3: 45–55.

Hawkins-Taylor

Mollman

Walstrom

, et al. Perceptions of palliative care: voices from rural South Dakota. Am J Hospice Palliat Med. 2020; 38: 557–565.

Mollman

Berke

Anderson

, et al. Access to palliative care services: innovative development of a statewide network. J Palliat Med 2022: 26: 24.

10.

Institute of Medicine. Dying in America: improving quality and honoring individual preferences near the end of life, 2015, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18748/dying-in-america-improving-quality-and-honoring-individual-preferences-near

11.

Ahia

Blais

. Primary palliative care for the general internist: integrating goals of care discussion into the outpatient setting. Ochsner J 2014; 14: 704–711. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25598737

12.

National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care [NCP]. Clinical practice guidelines for quality palliative care. 4th ed. Richmond, VA: National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, 2018, https://www.nationalcoalitionhpc.org/ncp/

13.

Joint Accreditation for Interprofessional Continuing Education. Improving healthcare with interprofessional continuing education (IPCE), 2023, https://jointaccreditation.org/

14.

South Dakota Department of Health. Population estimates for South Dakota urban, rural, and frontier counties adapted from US Census Bureau, 2020, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/SD