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

• Published in: Journal of pain and symptom management Vol. 57; no. 5; pp. 1009 - 1017.e6
• Main Authors: Gustin, Jillian L., Yang, Holly B., Radwany, Steven M., Okon, Tomasz R., Morrison, Laura J., Levine, Stacie K., Hwang, Jennifer M., Buckholz, Gary T., Barnett, Michael D., Verbeck, Nicole, Landzaat, Lindy H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-05-2019; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Consensus methods; Curricula; Curricular milestones; fellowship; Fellowship training; graduate medical education; Health teachers; hospice; Medical education; Palliative care; Polls & surveys; Scholarships & fellowships; Trainees; United States > US; graduate medical education; hospice; fellowship; palliative care; Curricular milestones
• ISSN: 0885-3924; 1873-6513
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.02.013

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.
The objective of this study was to develop and vet CMs for HPM fellowships in the U.S.
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.
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.