Interprofessional collaboration between health professional learners when breaking bad news: a scoping review of teaching approaches.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to examine teaching approaches used to teach interprofessional health professional learners how to break bad news collaboratively. INTRODUCTION: When breaking bad news, health professionals must be equipped to deliver it skillfully and collaboratively; however, the literature shows that this skill receives little attention in program curricula. Consequently, health professionals can feel inadequately prepared to deliver bad news, which may lead to increased burnout, distress, and compassion fatigue. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that describe teaching approaches used to teach learners how to break bad news collaboratively were considered for inclusion. Studies must have included 2 or more undergraduate and/or postgraduate learners working toward a professional health or social care qualification/degree at a university or college. Studies including lay, complementary and alternative, or non-health/social care learners were excluded. Due to the primary language of the research team, only English articles were included. METHODS: The JBI 3-step process was followed for developing the search. Databases searched included MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, Education Resource Complete (EBSCOhost), and Social Work Abstracts (EBSCOhost). The initial search was conducted on February 11, 2021, and was updated on May 17, 2022. Title and abstract screening and data extraction were completed by 2 independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Results are presented in tabular or diagrammatic format, together with a narrative summary. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the scoping review, with a range of methodologies and designs (pre/post surveys, qualitative, feasibility, mixed methods, cross-sectional, quality improvement, and methodological triangulation). The majority of papers were from the United States (n=8; 61.5%). All but 1 study used simulation-enhanced interprofessional education as the preferred method to teach interprofessional cohorts of learners how to break bad news. The bulk of simulations were face-to-face (n=11; 84.6%). Three studies (23.1%) were reported as high fidelity, while the remainder did not disclose fidelity. All studies that used simulation to teach students how to break bad news utilized simulated participants/patients to portray patients and/or family in the simulations. The academic level of participants varied, with the majority noted as undergraduate (n=7; 53.8%); 3 studies (23.1%) indicated a mix of undergraduate and graduate participants, 2 (15.4%) were graduate only, and 1 (7.7%) was not disclosed. There was a range of health professional programs represented by participants, with medicine and nursing equally in the majority (n=10; 76.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-enhanced interprofessional education was the most reported teaching approach to teach interprofessional cohorts of students how to break bad news collaboratively. Inconsistencies were noted in the language used to describe bad news, use of breaking bad news and interprofessional competency frameworks, and integration of interprofessional education and simulation best practices. Further research should focus on other interprofessional approaches to teaching how to break bad news; how best to incorporate interprofessional competencies into interprofessional breaking bad news education; whether interprofessional education is enhancing collaborative breaking bad news; and whether what is learned about breaking bad news is being retained over the long-term and incorporated into practice. Future simulation-specific research should explore whether and how the Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best Practice are being implemented and whether simulation is resulting in student satisfaction and enhanced learning.

Implications of understanding the undergraduate nursing students' learning styles: A discussion paper.

The article aims to present and critique the literature exploring nursing students' learning styles and to discuss the implications of understanding nursing students' learning styles for nurse educators, nursing students, and nursing academic programs. Learning style refers to the way an individual prefers to learn. Learning styles are shaped by several factors and change with different contexts. The learning styles vary among students in nursing programs and other health professions, with no one dominant style. Despite inconsistent evidence, educators believe that matching their teaching methods with students' learning styles can promote academic performance. The authors share a teaching experience that incorporates offering several teaching methods for the same content to meet the different learning styles of nursing students. The teaching experience resulted in students' satisfaction and improvement in their performance. The paper proposes assisting nursing students to develop their learning styles to enable them to master the skillset required by nursing as a profession. These nursing students are future nurses who would have developed the necessary learning style and skills to provide safe and competent nursing care.

Creating psychological safety in interprofessional simulation for health professional learners: a scoping review of the barriers and enablers.

Interprofessional simulation-based education (IP-SBE) supports the acquisition of interprofessional collaborative competencies. Psychologically safe environments are necessary to address socio-historical hierarchies and coercive practices that may occur in IP-SBE, facilitating fuller student participation. A scoping review was conducted to understand the barriers and enablers of psychological safety within IP-SBE. Research papers were eligible if they included two or more undergraduate and/or post-graduate students in health/social care qualifications/degrees and discussed barriers and/or enablers of psychological safety within simulation-based education. Sources of evidence included experimental, quasi-experimental, analytical observational, descriptive observational, qualitative, and mixed-methodological peer-reviewed studies. English or English-translated articles, published after January 1, 1990, were included. Data were extracted by two members of the research team. Extraction conflicts were resolved by the principal investigators. In total, 1,653 studies were screened; 1,527 did not meet inclusion criteria. After a full-text review, 99 additional articles were excluded; 27 studies were analyzed. Psychological safety enablers include prebriefing-debriefing by trained facilitators, no-blame culture, and structured evidenced-based simulation designs. Hierarchy among/between professions, fear of making mistakes, and uncertainty were considered barriers. Recognition of barriers and enablers of psychological safety in IP-SBE is an important first step towards creating strategies that support the full participation of students in their acquisition of IPC competencies.

Interprofessional collaboration between health professional learners when breaking bad news: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to examine pedagogies used to teach interprofessional health learners how to break bad news collaboratively. INTRODUCTION: Breaking bad news is a skill health care professionals must be equipped to deliver well, yet literature shows that this skill receives little attention in program curricula. Consequently, health care professionals feel inadequately prepared to deliver bad news, leading to greater burnout, distress, and fatigue. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that describe pedagogies used to teach breaking bad news will be considered for inclusion. Studies must include two or more undergraduate and/or postgraduate learners working towards a professional health or social care qualification or degree at a university or college. Studies including lay, complementary and alternative, or non-health or social care professional learners will be excluded. METHODS: The JBI three-step process will be followed for developing the search. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Education Resource Centre, and Social Work Abstracts. Title and abstract screening through to data extraction will be completed by two independent reviewers and any disagreements will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer. Results will be presented in tabular or diagrammatic form, together with a narrative summary.

Effect of cobedding twins on coregulation, infant state, and twin safety.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of cobedding on twin coregulation and twin safety. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: Two university affiliated Level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seventeen sets (N = 234) of stable preterm twins (<37 weeks gestational age at birth) admitted to the NICU. METHODS: Sets of twins were randomly assigned to be cared for in a single cot (cobedded) or in separate cots (standard care). State response was obtained from videotaped and physiologic data measured and recorded for three, 3-hour sessions over a one-week study period. Tapes were coded for infant state by an assessor blind to the purpose of the study. RESULTS: Twins who were cobedded spent more time in the same state (p < .01), less time in opposite states (p < .01), were more often in quiet sleep (p < .01) and cried less (p < .01) than twins who were cared for in separate cots. There was no difference in physiological parameters between groups (p = .85). There was no difference in patient safety between groups (incidence of sepsis, p = .95), incidence of caregiver error (p = .31), and incidence of apnea (p = .70). CONCLUSIONS: Cobedding promotes self-regulation and sleep and decreases crying without apparent increased risk.