Care for Elders A Case Based Modular Interdisciplinary Curriculum in Geriatric Care: Implementation...

Care for Elders A Case Based Modular Interdisciplinary

Curriculum in Geriatric Care: Implementation and Evaluation

CCSMH Conference, September 2007

There are no apparent conflicts of interest that may have a

direct bearing on the subject matter of the presentation

Authors

Martha Donnelly, MD, FRCPC David Jewell, MSW, MHSC David Lewis, PhD Janet Kushner-Kow, MD, MEd., FRCP

Purpose

To discuss development and evaluation of an interdisciplinary case based

geriatric curriculum

Background

• Care for Elders is an interdisciplinary group of academics at UBC

• Project to develop a geriatric educational curriculum for diverse audiences

• Modules to be accessible and always evaluated

Partners

• Departments of Family Practice, Psychiatry, Medicine

• College of Health Disciplines• School of Nursing• School of Rehab Sciences• School of Social Work• School of Audiology and Speech Sciences• Seniors representative

Target Learners

• Undergraduate

• Postgraduate

• Continuing professional development (in an interdisciplinary form)

Facilitators non-expert

STRUCTURE

• Pre-reading 1 ½ hours evidence based• Case based• Stand alone two hour modules in the

context of a possible eleven to fifteen week course

• Mode of delivery – small group, face-to-face (with a possible move to internet teaching later)

Curricular Objectives

1. To improve interprofessional team functioning

2. To learn basic geriatric evidence based content

3. To foster self-directed learning

4. To ultimately improve health care for seniors

Curriculum Topics

1. Successful aging

2. Interprofessional team work

3. Falls

4. Medications and the older adult

5. Chronic neurological disorders

6. Depression and grief

7. Dementia I (early)

8. Dementia II (late)

Curriculum Topics

9. Delirium

10.Persistent Pain

11.Palliative care

12. Informal support systems (Long Journey)

13. Incontinence

14.Nutrition and oral health

15.Patient safety (being developed)

Non-expert Facilitation

• Written guide: key points• Guide, do not lecture!• Ask group to introduce themselves• Ask for volunteers for scribe, timekeeper, reader• Talk as little as possible, but as much as

necessary• Questions are the best form of interventions• Illuminate group functioning issues• Identify teaching moments

Non-expert Facilitation

Video:

To demonstrate:

• Poor, fair and good facilitation styles

EvaluationsImmediate:• Degree of realism in case• Degree of complexity in case• How could case be improved?• Completeness of pre-readings• Degree of content learning• Degree of team functioning learning• Facilitator functioning• Write down two or three things newly learned• Name two to three changes you will make in

your practice

Hamilton Evaluation• Learner evaluation (comparison to BC

experience)• Qualitative component

- written commentary- focus groups

• Client outcomes using a controlled before and after analysis of administrative data bases for urban and rural services and chart reviews

• 11 modules, 36 participants in the pilot, 425 learner evaluations

• 1,986 clients pre and post – admin data review• 9 focus group participants • 20 chart reviews

Hamilton Evaluation

• Content evaluation somewhat negative• Focus group more positive (enthusiasm

for the form of the course, the dynamics of networking and interdisciplinarity)

• Practice involved increased referrals (confirmed by chart review)

• Data on patient benefit inconclusive

Hamilton Evaluation

Later comments:

People learned about other disciplines and how they contribute to good care outcomes. Also learned about other resources and learned about overlap in roles.

One group carried on after the program concluded and met as a book club – ongoing professional education.

Hamilton EvaluationLater comments:Curriculum worked best it seemed in more rural areas. At least there was more enthusiasm. Also well received for new staff

People wanted to use in a more flexible way. At the time these sites took on this education endeavor, they had to do all of the components. Now a flexible approach should be helpful.

Hamilton EvaluationLater comments:• Students really benefit. Dr. Joy St. Onge

is using individual components with med students. They shadow another discipline, read one of the curriculum pieces and then come together in the role of a PT or SW to discuss the case. Very well received and will be continuing.

• LTC wanted more specific material for them. This group was the largest.

Hamilton Evaluation

Later comments:• Might have been helpful to have a physician lead to

really add more credibility to this whole process. We didn’t have a physician at any of the sites. Exception is Joy’s role.

• Might be good to move learning on line rather than paper based only.

BC Evaluation

• Appreciation of content according to level of education and experience

• Interdisciplinary forum very much appreciated

• Team building in smaller communities apparent

Implementation

• Vancouver: GPEP• Fraser Health Authority• North

- Smithers and Fort St. John• Interior Health Authority

- Penticton, Vernon• Hamilton• Calgary• NICE

- (? Palliative care and Persistent Pain)

Learning Points

• Interdisciplinary small groups effective

• Revisions needed in content ongoing

• Revisions needed per province for national approach

• Non-expert facilitators work but some groups still like experts