A growing body of research has examined modalities for delivering palliative care education; however, we know little about education and training preferences of VA interdisciplinary Palliative Care Consult Teams (PCCT). In the BEACON II study, we explored training preferences of PCCTs from 46 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) participating in either a multisite webinar or a small group, in-person workshop. We interviewed participants by telephone seven to eight month post-training. In all, 75.9% preferred in-person education and training, including 78.9% of workshop participants and 73.1% of webinar participants. Respondents described in-person training as fostering learning through the following processes: (1) active engagement and focus, (2) interaction and networking, (3) meaning-making and relevance, and (4) reciprocity and commitment. Although it is not possible for Web-based palliative care education programs to replicate all aspects of the in-person learning experience, building experiential, interactive, meaningful, and reciprocal components into Web-based education may help shift preferences and make interdisciplinary team-based palliative care education accessible to a larger audience.
DumanovskyTAugustinRRogersMLettangKMeierDEMorrisonRS. The growth of palliative care in U.S. hospitals: a status report. J Palliat Med. 2016;19(1):8–15.
2.
BischoffK.O’RiordanDLMarksAKSudoreRPantilatSZ. Care planning for inpatients referred for palliative care consultation. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(1):48–54.
3.
FerrisFDBrueraEChemyNCummingsC, et al.Palliative cancer care a decade later: accomplishments, the need, next steps—from the American society of clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(18):3052–3058.
4.
Veterans Health Administration. Palliative Care Consult Teams (PCCT). Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs; 2003. VHA Directive 2003-008.
5.
ChongKOlsonEMBancTECohenSAnderson-MalicoRPenrodJD. Types and rate of implementation of palliative care recommendations for care of hospitalized veterans. J Palliat Med. 2004;7(6):784–791.
6.
TenoJMFreedmanVAKasperJDGozaloPMorV. Is care for the dying improving in the United States?J Palliat Med. 2015;18(8):662–666.
7.
CarrollTWeisbrodNO’ConnorAQuillT. Primary palliative care education: a pilot study. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2018;35(4):565–569.
8.
O’MahonySLevineSBaronT, et al.Palliative workforce development and regional training program. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2018;35(1):138–143.
9.
LevineSO’MahonySBaronA, et al.Training the workforce: description of a longitudinal interdisciplinary education and mentoring program in palliative care. J Pain Sympt Manage. 2017;53(4):728–737.
10.
StacyAMagdicKRosenzweigMFreemanBVeroskyD. Improving knowledge, comfort and confidence of nurses providing end-of-life care in the hospital setting through use of the CARES tools. J Hosp Palliat Nurs. 2019;21(3):200–206.
11.
NakazawaYKizawaYHashisumeTMoritaTSasaharaTMiyashitaM. One-year follow-up of an educational intervention for palliative care consultation teams. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2014;44 (2):172–179.
12.
TanWSCarJLallPLowCKHoAHY. Implementing advance care planning in acute hospitals: leading the transformation of norms. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(6):1278–1285.
13.
EvansLTaubertM.State of the science: the doll is dead: simulation in palliative care education. BMJ Supp Palliat Care. 2019;9(2):117–119.
14.
MageeCKoffmanJ.Out-of-hours palliative care: what are the educational needs and preferences of general practitioners?BMJ Supp Palli Care. 2016;6(3):362–368.
15.
DayFCSrinivasanMDer-MartirosianCGriffinEHoffmanJRWilkesMS. A comparison of web-based and end-of-life care curricula: a quasi-randomized controlled study at one institution. Acad Med. 2015;90(3):331–337.
16.
ArenellaCYoxSEcksteinDSOusleyA. Expanding the reach of a cancer palliative care curriculum through web-based dissemination: a public private collaboration. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25(3):418–421.
17.
PulsfordDJacksonGO’BrienTYatesSDuxburyJ. Classroom-based and distance learning education and training courses in end-of-life care for health and social care staff: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2011;27(3):221–235.
18.
ConnellSEYatesPBarrettL. Understanding the optimal learning environment in palliative care. Nurse Educ Today. 2010;31(5):472–476.
19.
CookDA. We-based learning: pros, cons, and controversies. Clin Med. 2007;7(1):37–42.
20.
BowenS. Engaged learning: are we all on the same page?Peer Rev. 2005;7(2):4–7.
21.
Burk-RafelJMJonesRLoganRLFarlowJL. Engaging learners to advance medical education. Acad Med. 2017;92(4):437–440.
22.
IsbaRWoolfKHannemanR. Social network analysis in medical education. Med Educ. 2017;51(1):81–88.
23.
LippeMLintonBJonesB. Utilizing a collaborative learning activity to sensitize interprofessional students to palliative care scopes of practice with adolescent and young adults. J Interprof Care. 2019;33(2):267–269.
24.
WangWGuoLHeLWuYJ. Effects of social-interactive engagement on the dropout ratio in online learning: insights from MOOC. Behav Inform Technol. 2019:38(6):621–636.
25.
TiemanJ. Ensuring quality in online palliative care resources. Cancers (Basel). 2016;8(12):113–120.
26.
VanGeestJB. Process evaluation of an educational intervention to improve end-of-life care: the education for physicians on end-of-life care (EPEC) program. Ame J Hosp Palliat Care. 2001;18(4):233–238.
27.
TaatzLWenzelVPeiselerGJ. CIS (change in impact score)—a novel outcome measurement to quantify the relevance of medical education interventions on professional performance. J Eur CME. 2017;6(1):1375377.
28.
KizawaYYamamotoR. Achievement and future direction of the PEACE Project—a national education project for palliative care education. Can Chemother. 2017;44(7):541–544.
29.
MoodyM. Serial reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Sociol Theory. 2008;26(2):130–151.
30.
LiuXMagjukaRJBonkCJCurtisJLeeSH. Does sense of community matter? an examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning communities in online courses. Quart Rev Distance Educat. 2007;8(1):9–24, 87–88.
31.
RovaiAP. Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Int High Educat. 2002;5(4):319–332.
32.
BeamanAAsanoRSibbrittDNewtonPJDavidsonPM. Global service learning and health systems strengthening: an integrative literature review. Heliyon. 2018;4(8):e00713.
33.
CrawfordGHallettJBarnesACavillJLClarksonJShiltonTR. Twenty years of capacity building and partnership: a case study of a health promotion scholarship program. Health Promot J Austr. 2019;30(2):281–281.
34.
KayserC. Cultivating community-responsive future health care professionals: using service-learning in pre-health humanities education. J Med Humanit. 2017;38(4):385–395.
35.
BeattieJBradyLTobiasT. Improving clinician confidence and skills: piloting a web-based learning program for clinicians in supportive care screening of cancer patients. J Cancer Educ. 2014;29(1):38–43.
36.
BergmanJBallon-LandaELemanSEKwanLBennettCJLitwinMS. Engaging physician learners through a web-based platform: individualized end-of-life education. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2016;33(8):748–754.
37.
KinghornS. Delivering multiprofessional web-based psychosocial education: the lessons learnt. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2005;11(8):432–437.
38.
LeeYHKimK-J. Enhancement of student perceptions of learner-centeredness and community of inquiry in flipped classrooms. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):242.
39.
LucchettiALGEzequielODSde OliveiraINMoreira-AlmeidaALucchettiG. Using traditional or flipped classrooms to teach “geriatrics and gerontology”? investigating the impact of active learning on medical students’ competences. Med Teach. 2018;40 (12):1248–1256.
40.
JesurasaAMackenzieKJordanHGoyderEC. What factors facilitate the engagement with flipped classrooms used in the preparation for postgraduate medical membership examinations?Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:419–426.
41.
SharmaNLauCSDHarbuttD. How we flipped the medical classroom. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):327–330.
