ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Simulation is rarely used to help individuals with chronic diseases develop skills. The aim of the study was to provide recommendations for the use of simulation in therapeutic patient education (S-TPE). METHODS: Expert consensus was achieved with the participation of the following 3 groups of experts: (a) expert patients and caregivers; (b) health professionals specialized in therapeutic patient education (TPE); and (c) simulation experts. Each expert received a list of questions by e-mail in 3 iterations. The synthesis of the 2 first questionnaires resulted in 34 first recommendations voted during the consensus conference meeting. Each recommendation was subject to an extensive literature review. The quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations were assessed through the evaluation, development, and evaluation criteria categories (GRADE criteria). The third questionnaire selected and illustrated recommendations more specific to the use of S-TPE. RESULTS: At the end of the process, the experts identified 26 recommendations specific to the use of S-TPE. They proposed examples of skills in different diseases and stressed the importance of adapting the conditions of use (location, equipment, time of the care) to the circumstances of the patient learner and skills to be developed. Experts should exercise great caution as this technique presents ethical considerations related to patient care. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations underline the fact that simulation could bring added value to TPE. They provide a framework and examples for the experimental use of simulation in TPE. Research into feasibility and acceptability is needed.
Subject(s)
Patient Education as Topic/methods , Consensus Development Conferences as Topic , Delphi Technique , Group Processes , Humans , Patient Care Team , Self-ManagementABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: The purpose of this research was to promote the involvement and intervention of patient-partners (PPs) in collective sessions of therapeutic patient education (TPE), including training and support for the implementation of these sessions, in co-facilitation with a health professional (HP). Therefore, the matter was to co-construct a training model, to experiment with its implementation and to define favorable conditions for this collaboration. METHODS: Collaborative research oriented by the design, led by a steering committee representative of different categories of stakeholders, which has been spread over 2 years, in Paris area and Montpellier, in 4 phases: 1/ exploration (bibliographic review and investigation); 2/ recruitment of PPs affected by different pathologies; 3/ implementation and evaluation of PPs training in inter-pathology; 4/ implementation and evaluation of co-facilitated group sessions. RESULTS: 35 patients solicited, 24 (69%) included. Of these, 22 (92%) completed the training entirely; 17 sessions were conducted in co-facilitation (15 planned) for 151 patients (150 expected). Satisfaction rates for PPs, HPs and patient beneficiaries were very high. CONCLUSIONS: This research validated a training model for patient-partners in therapeutic education and identified some conditions that could facilitate their integration into TPE programs.
ABSTRACT
Purpose of research: The purpose of this research was to promote the involvement and intervention of patient-partners (PPs) in collective sessions of therapeutic patient education (TPE), including training and support for the implementation of these sessions, in co-facilitation with a health professional (HP). Therefore, the matter was to co-construct a training model, to experiment with its implementation and to define favorable conditions for this collaboration. METHODS: Collaborative research oriented by the design, led by a steering committee representative of different categories of stakeholders, which has been spread over 2 years, in Paris area and Montpellier, in 4 phases: 1/ exploration (bibliographic review and investigation); 2/ recruitment of PPs affected by different pathologies; 3/ implementation and evaluation of PPs training in inter-pathology; 4/ implementation and evaluation of co-facilitated group sessions. RESULTS: 35 patients solicited, 24 (69%) included. Of these, 22 (92%) completed the training entirely; 17 sessions were conducted in co-facilitation (15 planned) for 151 patients (150 expected). Satisfaction rates for PPs, HPs and patient beneficiaries were very high. CONCLUSIONS: This research validated a training model for patient-partners in therapeutic education and identified some conditions that could facilitate their integration into TPE programs.
Subject(s)
Patient Education as Topic/organization & administration , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Physician-Patient Relations , Humans , ParisABSTRACT
Meetings between patients and professionals were held with a view to developing guidelines for patient education. The participants included ten patients with a low socioeconomic status and struggling to control their diabetes, ten health professionals dealing with issues in diabetes education and a member of an association of diabetic patients. The participants highlighted the importance of fostering links between patients, between professionals, and between patients and professionals in order to promote involvement and mobilization and to encourage the development of a viable long-term education program.
