Developing competencies for multidisciplinary hospice and palliative care professionals in Korea
- First Online:
- 497 Downloads
Competency-based assessment helps to improve performance and to standardize education programs for hospice and palliative care professionals. This paper aims to report the process and results of developing the hospice and palliative care competencies by multidisciplinary experts in Korea.
The competency development task force team of Korean hospice and palliative care professionals was comprised of seven physicians, four nurses, two social workers, and two clergy. To build consensus regarding competencies, the team performed a two-round Delphi survey. The importance of competency domains was assessed by using a 5-point Likert scale. After the completion of the Delphi survey, final competency domains were decided in a consensus meeting.
The competencies were composed of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The competency domains were identified as the following: 11 domains and 16 subdomains for physicians, 11 domains for nurses, 5 domains and 15 subdomains for social workers, as well as 3 domains and 5 subdomains for spiritual care providers. The high importance domains were different by specialties. Physical care and treatment for physicians, symptom management for nurses, bereavement care for social workers, and communication for spiritual care providers were ranked as highly important. For nurses and spiritual care providers, attitude-related domains were ranked the highest in importance.
The competencies developed by multidisciplinary professionals are useful to identify the appropriate roles of each hospice and palliative care specialist involved in a team approach to patient care.
KeywordsCompetency Hospice Palliative care Delphi survey Education
- 1.World Health Organization (2002) Competency-based curriculum development in medical education: an introduction. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 2.Royal College of Nursing (2002) A Frame for Nurses Working in Specialist Palliative Care: competencies project. RCN Publication, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 3.Becker R (2007) The use of competencies in palliative care education. In: Foyle L, Hostad J (eds) Innovations in Cancer and Palliative Care Education. Radcliffe Publishing, NewYork, pp 13–23Google Scholar
- 5.EAPC (2009) Recommendations of the European Association for Palliative Care For the Development of postgraduate curricula leading to certification in palliative medicine. The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), MilanoGoogle Scholar
- 7.MCCC (2003) Spiritual and Religious Care Competencies for Specialist Palliative Care. Marie Curie Cancer Care, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 8.Ministry of Health and Welfare (2003) Cancer Control 2015: Second term 10 year action plan for cancer control in Korea. SeoulGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kang J, Kim DY, Shin DW et al (2010) A Survey on the certification and curriculum development for hospice and palliative care professionals. Korean J Hosp Palliat Care 13(1):32–40Google Scholar
- 11.Shin DW, Choi JY, Kim JH et al. (2010) Development of standard service model and quality evaluation system for palliative care organizations. National R & D Program for Cancer Control, No.920350, National Cancer Center in Korea. GoyangGoogle Scholar
- 12.Winterton J, Delamare-Le Deist F, Stringfellow E (2005) Typology of knowledge, skills and competences: clarification of the concept and prototype. Office for Official Publication of the European. Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- 18.Allen T, Brailovsky C, Rainsberry P et al (2011) Defining competency-based evaluation objectives in family medicine: dimensions of competence and priority topics for assessment. Can Fam Physician 57(9):331–340Google Scholar
- 24.Moaveni A, Gallinaro A, Conn LG et al (2010) A Delphi approach to developing a core competency framework for family practice registered nurses in Ontario. Nurs Leadersh 23(4):45–60Google Scholar
- 25.Hsu C, Sandford BA (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 12(10):1–822Google Scholar