Facilitators and Barriers to Recruiting Surgeons into Hospice and Palliative Medicine Training.

CONTEXT: Few individuals have fellowship training in both hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) and a surgical specialty including general surgery, general obstetrics and gynecology, or affiliated subspecialties. There is a paucity of data to explain why some surgeons choose to pursue HPM fellowship training. OBJECTIVE: Identify facilitators and barriers to palliative medicine fellowship training among physicians from a surgical specialty. METHODS: We conducted individual semistructured interviews with 17 surgeons who were also fellowship-trained in HPM. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes. RESULTS: Participants reported pivotal experiences-either positive exposure to palliative care or suboptimal surgical care experiences-as a key motivator for pursuing specialty palliative care training. Additionally, participants chose HPM training because they felt that practicing from a HPM perspective aligned with their personal care philosophy, and in some cases, offered professional opportunities to help achieve career goals. Participants reported encountering bias from both HPM and surgical faculty, and also found that some HPM fellowship programs did not accept surgical trainees. Surgeons also reported logistical concerns related to coordinating a one-year fellowship as a barrier to formal HPM training. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the motivations of surgeons who pursue HPM training and identifying challenges to completing fellowship may inform solutions to expand surgeon representation in palliative care. Both HPM and surgical faculty should be educated on the benefits of specialty HPM training for surgical trainees and practicing surgeons. Further research should explore HPM fellowship best practices for welcoming and training surgeons and other underrepresented specialties.

Development of Curricular Milestones for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship Training in the U.S.

CONTEXT: A physician workgroup of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine sought to define curricular milestones (CMs) for hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) Fellowship Programs. The developed list of CMs would serve as components upon which to organize curriculum and standardize what to teach during training. These would complement entrustable professional activities previously developed by this group and new specialty-specific reporting milestones (RMs) for HPM developed through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop and vet CMs for HPM fellowships in the U.S. METHODS: A draft of CMs was developed through an iterative consensus group process with repeated cycles of drafting, analyzing, and revising by a broadly representative expert workgroup who then gained input from HPM educators at a national meeting workshop. The CM draft was subsequently revised and then vetted through a national survey to 203 fellowship educators. Respondents were asked to "keep," "revise," or "exclude" each proposed CM with space for comments. An agreement of 75% among respondents was set as the criteria a priori for keeping a CM. Eighty-four of the 203 potential respondents participated in the survey. All items met the minimum agreement level of 75% or greater recommending keeping the CM. Greater than 85% of the respondents agreed to keep 19 of the 22 CMs with no revisions. Comments for revisions on other CMs were primarily related to changes in language and formatting, not conceptual underpinnings. CONCLUSION: A group consensus method strengthened by inclusion of a national survey to HPM fellowship educators resulted in a CM document that is both carefully developed and broadly vetted. Along with entrustable professional activities and new specialty-specific RMs, these CMs offer educators and trainees tools to create more comprehensive curricula and behaviorally based assessment tools for HPM fellowships and their stakeholders.

Development of Entrustable Professional Activities for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship Training in the United States.

CONTEXT: Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) represent the key physician tasks of a specialty. Once a trainee demonstrates competence in an activity, they can then be "entrusted" to practice without supervision. A physician workgroup of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine sought to define Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) EPAs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the development of a set of consensus EPAs for HPM fellowship training in the United States. METHODS: A set of HPM EPAs was developed through an iterative consensus process involving an expert workgroup, vetting at a national meeting with HPM educators, and an electronic survey from a national registry of 3550 HPM physicians. Vetting feedback was reviewed, and survey data were statistically analyzed. Final EPA revisions followed from the multisource feedback. RESULTS: Through the iterative consensus process, a set of 17 HPM EPAs was created, detailed, and revised. In the national survey, 362 HPM specialists responded (10%), including 58 of 126 fellowship program directors (46%). Respondents indicated that the set of 17 EPAs well represented the core activities of HPM physician practice (mean 4.72 on a five-point Likert scale) and considered all EPAs to either be "essential" or "important" with none of the EPAs ranking "neither essential, nor important." CONCLUSIONS: A set of 17 EPAs was developed using national input of practicing physicians and program directors and an iterative expert workgroup consensus process. The workgroup anticipates that EPAs can assist fellowship directors with strengthening competency-based training curricula.