Barriers and facilitators to implementing a longitudinal dementia education programme into undergraduate healthcare curricula: a qualitative study.
Barriers
Curricular change
Dementia education
Facilitators
Healthcare education
Leadership
Longitudinal
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Apr 2021
09 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
15
11
2020
accepted:
25
03
2021
entrez:
10
4
2021
pubmed:
11
4
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As the numbers of people with dementia worldwide rises, there is a need for improved knowledge and awareness about the condition across the healthcare workforce. There are concerns that traditional models of healthcare education, which focus on short-term episodes of care, limit student understanding of long-term conditions. We therefore designed and delivered the Time for Dementia programme at five Universities in the UK. Through longitudinal contact with families living with dementia, healthcare students gain increased understanding about the experiences of living with dementia. However, implementing new educational models brings challenges. To enable implementation of similar programmes in other educational institutions, this study aimed to identify the common barriers and facilitators of implementing these types of longitudinal programmes at scale. To understand the facilitators and barriers of implementing a longitudinal dementia educational programme, a qualitative study was completed. Between October and December 2018, twelve in-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with university teaching staff (n = 6), programme administrators (n = 4), and Alzheimer's Society staff (n = 2) that had key responsibilities for implementing Time for Dementia. Interview questions explored participants experiences, the facilitators, and the challenges encountered when implementing the programme. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The analysis identified five key themes: "Leadership characteristics", "Organisational and student buy-in", "Perceived value and motivating factors", "Team coalition and support", and "Time and fit". Implementation of the programme was enhanced by resilient leaders managing the challenges of curricular change. Their belief in the value of the programme, stakeholder buy-in, and supportive team working enabled challenges to be overcome. Workload was reduced and student buy-in increased as time progressed and as more resources became available. A flexible approach to implementation was recommended to ensure the programme fits within the established curriculum. Curricular change is a challenging task, yet necessary, if we are to improve care for people with long term conditions such as dementia. This study highlights the common barriers and facilitators experienced when implementing a longitudinal educational programme at scale. The findings presented in this study can be used by other educational institutions to manage curricular change efforts.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
As the numbers of people with dementia worldwide rises, there is a need for improved knowledge and awareness about the condition across the healthcare workforce. There are concerns that traditional models of healthcare education, which focus on short-term episodes of care, limit student understanding of long-term conditions. We therefore designed and delivered the Time for Dementia programme at five Universities in the UK. Through longitudinal contact with families living with dementia, healthcare students gain increased understanding about the experiences of living with dementia. However, implementing new educational models brings challenges. To enable implementation of similar programmes in other educational institutions, this study aimed to identify the common barriers and facilitators of implementing these types of longitudinal programmes at scale.
METHODS
METHODS
To understand the facilitators and barriers of implementing a longitudinal dementia educational programme, a qualitative study was completed. Between October and December 2018, twelve in-depth semi-structured interviews were completed with university teaching staff (n = 6), programme administrators (n = 4), and Alzheimer's Society staff (n = 2) that had key responsibilities for implementing Time for Dementia. Interview questions explored participants experiences, the facilitators, and the challenges encountered when implementing the programme. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analysis identified five key themes: "Leadership characteristics", "Organisational and student buy-in", "Perceived value and motivating factors", "Team coalition and support", and "Time and fit". Implementation of the programme was enhanced by resilient leaders managing the challenges of curricular change. Their belief in the value of the programme, stakeholder buy-in, and supportive team working enabled challenges to be overcome. Workload was reduced and student buy-in increased as time progressed and as more resources became available. A flexible approach to implementation was recommended to ensure the programme fits within the established curriculum.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Curricular change is a challenging task, yet necessary, if we are to improve care for people with long term conditions such as dementia. This study highlights the common barriers and facilitators experienced when implementing a longitudinal educational programme at scale. The findings presented in this study can be used by other educational institutions to manage curricular change efforts.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33836747
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02632-9
pii: 10.1186/s12909-021-02632-9
pmc: PMC8034189
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
201Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct 21;19(1):711
pubmed: 31638974
Acad Med. 2006 Apr;81(4):393-8
pubmed: 16565194
Educ Prim Care. 2019 Mar;30(2):72-79
pubmed: 30652938
Med Teach. 2012;34(7):548-54
pubmed: 22746961
Age Ageing. 2020 Oct 23;49(6):1080-1086
pubmed: 32946559
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017 Jan;32(1):68-75
pubmed: 27723124
Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Jan;60:161-169
pubmed: 29132018
Med Educ. 2016 Sep;50(9):922-32
pubmed: 27562892
Nurse Educ Today. 2016 Jan;36:275-80
pubmed: 26296542
Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2006;27(2):11-23
pubmed: 17023380
Int J Older People Nurs. 2013 Sep;8(3):207-15
pubmed: 22329731
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2014 May-Aug;27(2):138-42
pubmed: 25420974
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2021 Apr;36(4):558-565
pubmed: 33098137
Acad Med. 2000 Jun;75(6):575-94
pubmed: 10875502
BMC Geriatr. 2016 May 31;16:113
pubmed: 27245979
Can Med Educ J. 2018 Mar 27;9(1):e68-e73
pubmed: 30140337
Perspect Med Educ. 2020 Feb;9(1):5-19
pubmed: 31953655
Med Educ. 2016 Oct;50(10):997-1014
pubmed: 27628718
BMC Med. 2019 Jul 15;17(1):130
pubmed: 31303173
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Med Educ Online. 2011 Apr 04;16:
pubmed: 21475642
Rural Remote Health. 2011;11(2):1665
pubmed: 21449620
Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):68-78
pubmed: 11392867
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Jan 16;15:2
pubmed: 25592295
BMC Med. 2019 Dec 14;17(1):229
pubmed: 31837711
Med Educ. 2014 Jun;48(6):572-82
pubmed: 24713035
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907
pubmed: 29937585
BMC Med Educ. 2012 Aug 21;12:80
pubmed: 22906234
JAMA. 2012 Jan 11;307(2):165-72
pubmed: 22235087
Lancet. 2015 Feb 14;385(9968):587-589
pubmed: 25468155
J Res Nurs. 2019 Jun;24(3-4):271-278
pubmed: 34394535