Saturday, March 30, 2024

Compassion in clinical setting

Compassion in clinical setting : A pictorial review

 

Compassion in Clinical Settings : A tabular Review

Compassion in Clinical Settings: A tabular review

Theme Key Points References
Definition and Scope of Compassion - Complex construct without a universally accepted definition.
- Distinguished from sympathy; involves understanding and the motivation to alleviate suffering.
- Has cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions.
Dewar et al. (2011), Sinclair et al. (2016), Strauss et al. (2016)
Compassion's Role and Impact - Essential for patient-provider relationships, linked to patient satisfaction and adherence.
- May influence health outcomes by modulating physiological stress responses.
- Faces challenges like clinician burnout and systemic constraints.
Sinclair et al. (2016), Strauss et al. (2016)
Fostering Compassion - Advocacy for mindfulness-based training and self-compassion programs.
- The role of narrative medicine in deepening understanding of patient experiences.
- Need for organizational culture shifts and systemic support for compassionate care.
Kemper & Khirallah (2015), Sinclair et al. (2016)
Measurement and Assessment - Introduction of tools like CCAT and SCQ for benchmarking compassionate care.
- Challenges include subjectivity and social desirability effects.
Sinclair et al. (2017), Sinclair et al. (2018)
Conclusion and Future Directions - Compassion is integral to patient care, with potential positive impacts on satisfaction and outcomes.
- Future research needed to explore the mechanisms linking compassion to health outcomes and strategies for its integration.
General Synthesis Based on Reviewed Literature

Dignity in Palliative Care

Literature Review on Dignity in Palliative Care

Literature Review on Dignity in Palliative Care

Section Subsection Concept Key Points Importance Reference
Conceptualization of Dignity Concepts Intrinsic Dignity Dignity as an intrinsic, unconditional worth of every individual. Foundation of ethical care and human rights. Sulmasy, 2008
Role-Related Dignity Dignity derived from one’s social roles and the ability to fulfill associated expectations. Reflects on societal values and personal self-esteem. Chochinov et al., 2002
Social Dignity Dignity influenced by social interactions, respect, and recognition by others. Critical for psychological well-being and social integration. Matiti & Trorey, 2008
Key Themes Themes Control and Autonomy Importance of control over personal decisions and life. Central to patient-centered care and empowerment. Chochinov, 2002
Privacy and Respect Respect, privacy, and maintaining bodily integrity are essential. Vital for ethical healthcare practices and patient comfort. Jacelon et al., 2004
Identity and Self-Worth The affirmation of personal value and identity beyond illness. Essential for holistic care and recognizing individuals’ worth. van Wijngaarden et al., 2013
Factors Influencing Dignity Individual Illness Trajectory The impact of illness on dignity, related to symptoms and dependence. Directly impacts quality of life and autonomy. Chochinov et al., 2002
Autonomy and Control The role of autonomy in maintaining dignity despite illness progression. Key for patient engagement and respect for personal choices. van Wijngaarden et al., 2013
Psychological State Effects of mental health on dignity, including depression and existential distress. Influences overall well-being and dignity preservation. Chochinov, 2002
Spirituality The role of spiritual beliefs and meaning in supporting dignity. Supports coping mechanisms and existential well-being. Jacelon et al., 2004
Interpersonal Factors Interpersonal Caregiver Relations Quality of interactions with healthcare providers affects dignity. Crucial for effective and compassionate care delivery. Matiti & Trorey, 2008
Social Support Supportive relationships reinforce dignity; isolation undermines it. Important for emotional well-being and social connectivity. Henoch & Danielson, 2009
Systemic Factors Systemic Healthcare Environments The care setting's physical and cultural environment influences dignity. Significantly affects patients’ experience and perception of care. van Wijngaarden et al., 2013

Friday, March 29, 2024

Interpersonal Dynamics within Healthcare Teams

Interpersonal Dynamics within Healthcare Teams: An In-depth Review

Interpersonal Dynamics within Healthcare Teams: An In-depth Review

The intricate web of interpersonal relationships within the healthcare sector is pivotal in sculpting the landscape of patient care. The synergistic interactions among doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals, embellished with mutual respect and shared objectives, significantly contribute to enhanced patient outcomes, a decrease in medical mishaps, and an elevation in patient contentment. In stark contrast, the deterioration of these relationships can act as a detriment to patient care, inflate costs, and undermine the morale of healthcare professionals. This analysis delves into the multifaceted impact of interpersonal relationships on patient care, identifying the determinants that mold these relationships, evaluating strategies to cultivate collaboration, and charting the course for future investigations.

The Ripple Effect of Interpersonal Relations on Patient Care

A harmonious healthcare setting, marked by trust, open dialogue, and collective ambitions, is the cornerstone of effective patient care. Research underscores the correlation between cohesive teamwork and a diminishment in medical errors, expedited patient recovery, and augmented satisfaction levels. The essence of clear and effective communication lies in its ability to streamline information sharing, care coordination, and mitigate delays in treatment. Moreover, a supportive work environment that fosters shared decision-making is instrumental in boosting job satisfaction among healthcare workers, subsequently enhancing patient experiences.

Conversely, the fabric of patient care unravels in the presence of negative interpersonal dynamics. Disruptive behaviors, communication breakdowns, and unresolved disputes lead to fragmented care, medical blunders, and jeopardize patient safety. Conflicts within healthcare teams have been linked to negative patient outcomes, extended hospitalizations, and escalated costs. A toxic work environment, stemming from poor interpersonal relations, escalates stress and burnout among healthcare workers, diminishing their capacity to empathize and make sound decisions. The perception of discord by patients can erode their trust and adversely affect their healthcare journey.

The Architecture of Interpersonal Relations in Healthcare

The interplay between healthcare professionals is influenced by various individual, organizational, and systemic elements. Hierarchical structures can either promote or impede collaboration. Disparities in communication styles can lead to misinterpretations and conflict. Understanding and clarity regarding roles and responsibilities are vital. The pressures of workload and time can restrict opportunities for interaction, leading to rushed communication and potential conflicts or misunderstandings. High stress levels within healthcare settings affect communication and can increase irritability among workers. An organization’s culture significantly impacts interpersonal dynamics.

Strategies for Augmenting Collaboration Among Healthcare Workers

The literature advocates for a variety of interventions aimed at refining communication, teamwork, and conflict resolution within healthcare settings. Initiatives aimed at bolstering communication skills have shown promise. Interprofessional Education (IPE) programs unite individuals from diverse healthcare backgrounds for cooperative learning, enhancing the understanding of varied roles and perspectives. Programs like TeamSTEPPS focus on cultivating teamwork competencies through exercises, simulations, and discussions, thereby improving communication and decision-making. Equipping healthcare workers with effective conflict resolution techniques enables them to address disagreements constructively. The role of leadership in shaping an organization's culture is critical.

Overview of Interpersonal Dynamics in Healthcare

Section Subheading Description
The Ripple Effect of Interpersonal Relations on Patient Care Positive Dynamics Linked to reduced errors, improved recovery, and satisfaction (Leonard et al., 2004; Manser, 2009).
Negative Dynamics Leads to fragmented care, medical errors, and increased costs (Rosenstein & O'Daniel, 2008; Almost et al., 2016).
The Architecture of Interpersonal Relations in Healthcare Hierarchical Structures Can promote or impede collaboration (Sexton et al., 2000).
Communication Styles Differences can lead to conflict; clear communication is crucial (Leonard et al., 2004).
Role Perceptions Clarity in roles is essential to avoid tensions (Manser, 2009).
Time Constraints and Workload Can limit interaction and lead to misunderstandings (Sexton et al., 2000).
Stress and Burnout Affects communication and increases irritability (Shanafelt et al., 2010).
Workplace Culture Significantly impacts dynamics; respect and inclusivity foster positive relationships (Rosenstein & O'Daniel, 2008).
Strategies for Augmenting Collaboration Among Healthcare Workers Communication Training Improves skills and bridges gaps (Leonard et al., 2004).
Interprofessional Education (IPE) Enhances understanding of roles (Reeves et al., 2016).
Team Training Focuses on teamwork competencies (Salas et al., 2008).
Conflict Resolution Training Teaches constructive skills (Almost et al., 2016).
Leadership Development Critical for fostering a positive culture.

Overview of Interpersonal Dynamics in Healthcare

The following diagram provides a visual overview of the intricate dynamics of interpersonal relationships within healthcare teams and their impact on patient care.

Logical Fallacies in Clinical Reasoning

Logical Fallacies in Clinical Reasoning

Exploring Logical Fallacies in Clinical Reasoning

This blog post delves into the various logical fallacies that can affect clinical reasoning and diagnosis, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions or ineffective treatment plans. Understanding these fallacies is crucial for improving diagnostic accuracy and patient care.

Logical Fallacies Overview

Confirmation Bias Leads to favoring information that confirms preexisting beliefs, disregarding contradictory evidence. A physician might continue to suspect a particular disease because of initial test results and personal bias, ignoring subsequent test results that suggest a different diagnosis.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Causes erroneous attribution of causality based on sequence rather than evidence. Assuming a patient's symptoms improved because of a specific medication, without considering other factors or interventions that occurred simultaneously.
Anchoring Bias Results in over-reliance on initial information, potentially overlooking subsequent evidence. If a patient presents symptoms that initially suggest a common illness, the doctor might focus on that diagnosis even when further symptoms or test results suggest a different condition.
Availability Heuristic Overestimates the likelihood of diagnoses or outcomes based on recency or memorability. After diagnosing several cases of a rare disease, a physician may overestimate its prevalence and incorrectly diagnose subsequent patients with the same condition.
False Dilemma/False Dichotomy Limits consideration to two options when more are available, potentially overlooking valid diagnoses or treatments. Concluding that a patient either has a psychological disorder or is faking their symptoms, without considering organic causes of their symptoms.
Overgeneralization Leads to broad conclusions from narrow evidence, risking inappropriate treatment choices. Believing a treatment is ineffective because it did not work in a few cases, without considering individual patient differences or the possibility of incorrect application.
Appeal to Authority May discourage critical analysis in favor of authoritative opinions. A junior doctor not questioning a senior doctor’s diagnosis, despite having evidence or a hunch that suggests another diagnosis might be more accurate.
Bandwagon Fallacy Encourages adoption of diagnoses, treatments, or trends without sufficient evidence. Prescribing a medication because it has become a popular choice among peers.
Wishful Thinking Allowing hopes or desires to influence diagnostic or treatment decisions. Hoping for a more favorable diagnosis for a patient and therefore ignoring or downplaying evidence that points to a more serious condition.
Hasty Generalization Drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence. Concluding that a treatment is highly effective based on a few positive outcomes, without considering larger, more comprehensive studies or data.
Slippery Slope Leads to avoidance of beneficial treatments due to unfounded fear of negative outcomes. Believing that prescribing a mildly addictive painkiller will definitely lead to addiction and therefore avoiding its use even when it's indicated.
False Cause Attributing causation without evidence supporting the causal connection. Assuming that because a patient's symptoms worsened after starting a new diet, the diet must be the cause of the worsening, without considering other variables like disease progression or other lifestyle changes.
Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question) Using the conclusion as a premise of the argument, leading to circular justification. Claiming a treatment works because it is effective, without providing independent evidence of its effectiveness.
Straw Man Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack or refute. A physician might oversimplify a colleague’s cautious approach to treatment as being completely against medication, thus ignoring the nuances of the colleague’s actual position.
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) Assuming something is true because it has not been proven false, and vice versa. Claiming a new treatment is safe because there have been no reports of harm, without sufficient studies or evidence to actually prove its safety.
Sunk Cost Fallacy Continuing a chosen course of action because of previous investments despite new evidence suggesting a change. Persisting with a costly treatment regimen that is not showing benefits because of the investment already made in terms of time, effort, and expense.
Appeal to Tradition Valuing methods or treatments simply because they have been used in the past. Continuing to use a medical procedure because "it's always been done that way," ignoring new evidence or technologies that suggest better alternatives.
Appeal to Novelty Favoring treatments or diagnostics because they are new, equating novelty with superiority. Favoring the latest medical device or drug without thoroughly evaluating its effectiveness compared to existing treatments.
Cherry Picking (Selective Evidence) Selecting evidence that supports one's argument while ignoring contradictory evidence. Emphasizing studies that show positive outcomes of a treatment while disregarding studies that show no effect or negative outcomes.
Equivocation Using ambiguous terms to mislead or justify a misleading conclusion. Using the term "recovery" to mean both symptom improvement and complete disease eradication interchangeably, leading to confusion about the effectiveness of a treatment.
Burden of Proof Demands that the opponent prove a claim is false rather than providing evidence to prove it is true. Insisting that others prove a novel treatment is ineffective rather than providing robust evidence of its efficacy.
False Equivalence Assuming two things are the same because they share some characteristics, ignoring significant differences. Equating the effectiveness of two different drugs because they're both classified as painkillers, ignoring differences in their action mechanisms, side effects, and efficacy.
Slippery Slope Assuming a first step will inevitably lead to a negative series of events without causal connection. Believing that prescribing a mild sedative for anxiety will inevitably lead to dependency, abuse, and serious drug addiction without considering controlled usage and monitoring practices.
Composition/Division Fallacy Assuming what's true for the part is true for the whole, or vice versa. Assuming that because a medication has side effects in elderly patients, it is unsafe for all age groups. Assuming a treatment effective for a population will be equally effective for every individual within that population.
No True Scotsman Making an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument. Dismissing evidence of a treatment's ineffectiveness by claiming that it wasn't administered "correctly," without specifying what the correct administration entails.
Ad Hominem Attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. Discrediting a colleague's diagnosis by questioning their credentials or experience rather than addressing the reasoning or evidence behind their diagnosis.
Tu Quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy) Dismissing someone's argument because they are inconsistent in practice. Ignoring advice from a healthcare professional about healthy lifestyle choices because they don't always follow those choices themselves.
Moving the Goalposts Arbitrarily changing the criteria of a claim when it has been met. After a treatment meets the initially agreed-upon success criteria, demanding additional evidence or outcomes for it to be considered effective.
Ambiguity Using a word or expression in an unclear or vague way to mislead or justify a misleading conclusion. Using the term "natural" in a way that implies safety and effectiveness without substantiating these qualities.
The Gambler’s Fallacy Believing that past events can affect the likelihood of something happening in the future, under circumstances where the events are independent. After a series of patients experience adverse effects from a medication, believing the next patient is less likely to experience them, as if there's a balancing force at play.
Appeal to Emotion Attempting to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Suggesting a particular treatment by emphasizing heartwarming recovery stories rather than presenting data on its efficacy and safety.
Red Herring Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the subject at hand. When questioned about the efficacy of a certain treatment, a healthcare provider brings up the cost of alternative treatments, diverting from the original question of efficacy.
Appeal to Fear Using fear to persuade others to accept a conclusion. Suggesting a specific diagnostic test by overly emphasizing the possibility of a rare but serious condition, instilling unnecessary fear to sway the patient's decision.
False Balance Presenting two sides of an issue as if they are equally supported by evidence, despite one side being significantly less credible. Giving equal weight to the opinions of a vastly experienced specialist and a source with dubious credentials when discussing treatment options.
Moral Equivalence Comparing minor misdeeds with major atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral. Equating the minor side effects of a vaccine with severe consequences of preventable diseases to argue against vaccination.
Non Sequitur Presenting an argument whose conclusions do not logically follow from its premises. Claiming a patient must not be suffering from a particular condition because they do not fit the stereotype associated with that condition.
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy Ignoring the differences while focusing on the similarities, making a random occurrence seem like a meaningful pattern. Noticing a series of successful outcomes for a particular treatment in a small group and concluding the treatment is highly effective, without acknowledging broader and more varied data that doesn't support this conclusion.
Middle Ground (False Compromise) Assuming that the compromise between two positions is always the truth. Believing that the best treatment plan must lie exactly between what two conflicting studies recommend, without evaluating the validity or relevance of each study's findings.
Hedging Using ambiguous language to evade a direct statement or to blur the truth. Giving a vague or non-committal answer when asked about the potential side effects of a treatment, thereby not providing clear information.
Faulty Analogy Assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect. Comparing the human body to a machine in an oversimplified manner to justify a particular treatment approach, ignoring the complex biological differences.
Argument from Silence (Argumentum ex Silentio) Assuming that because there is no evidence presented against a position, that position is correct, or vice versa. Assuming a medication is safe because there have not been any published reports of its dangers, disregarding the lack of comprehensive research.
Appeal to Pity (Ad Misericordiam) Attempting to induce pity to sway opponents. Suggesting a patient's story is so heartbreaking that they must be given a particular drug, even if it's not the most appropriate treatment for their condition.
Argument from Incredulity Assuming that because something is hard to believe, it must not be true, or conversely, if it seems too obvious, it must be true. Dismissing a rare diagnosis because it seems too improbable, despite evidence pointing in that direction.
The Fallacy of Exclusion Ignoring significant information that does not support one's conclusion or argument. Excluding evidence from a patient's history that contradicts a preferred diagnosis, thus narrowing the diagnostic focus inappropriately.
Argumentum ad Populum (Bandwagon Appeal) Assuming a claim is true because many people believe it to be true. Adopting a new medical procedure because it has become popular among healthcare professionals, without critically assessing its efficacy and safety based on solid evidence.
Naturalistic Fallacy Concluding about how things ought to be based on how things are or appear to be in nature. Asserting that natural remedies are inherently better or safer than synthetic medications without considering efficacy or potential risks.
The Spotlight Fallacy Assuming that the cases that receive the most attention are the most representative of an issue. Believing a particular medical condition is more prevalent than it actually is because it has been recently highlighted in the media.
Argument from Repetition (Ad Nauseam) Believing that a statement is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. Accepting a medical myth as truth because it has been repeatedly encountered in discussions, without seeking evidence-based verification.
Fallacy of Relative Privation Arguing that a problem is not significant because there are more serious problems in existence. Minimizing the importance of addressing mild symptoms in a patient by comparing them to more severe health issues.
Appeal to Worse Problems (Fallacy of the Worse Problem) Dismissing an issue or problem by pointing out something that is perceived to be a worse issue. Ignoring patient complaints about side effects of a medication by focusing on the severity of the disease it treats, suggesting the side effects should not be a concern.
Fallacy of Composition Assuming what's true for the individual must be true for the group, or what's true in some cases must be true in all. Assuming a treatment that works well for one patient will work equally well for all patients with the same condition.
Fallacy of Division Believing that what is true for the group must be true for individuals within the group. Believing that if a study finds a treatment effective on average, it must be effective for every individual patient.
Single Cause Fallacy Assuming there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a complex interaction of factors. Attributing a patient's obesity solely to overeating and ignoring other potential factors like genetics, metabolism, and psychological conditions.
The Fallacy of the Single Cause (Causal Oversimplification) Assuming a complex issue has a single cause. Assuming patient non-compliance is the only reason for treatment failure, overlooking factors like adverse effects, misunderstanding instructions, or financial constraints.

Understanding and mitigating these logical fallacies is essential for healthcare professionals aiming to enhance their clinical reasoning skills and provide better patient care. Encouraging critical thinking, continuous learning, and open discussions can help mitigate the impact of these cognitive biases.

Literature Review : Quality of Life in Palliative Care

Quality of Life in Palliative Care: A Literature Review

Quality of Life in Palliative Care: A Literature Review

This literature review explores various facets of quality of life in palliative care, underscoring the multidimensional nature of care necessary for patients facing serious illnesses.

Literature Review : Quality of Life in Palliative Care

Author(s) & Year Focus Area Key Findings Interventions/Measures Used Factors Affecting QoL
Connor, 2009 Palliative Care Overview Quality of life is a central goal; emphasis on well-being. N/A N/A
Hui et al., 2014 Multidimensional QoL Importance of addressing psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Multidimensional assessments. Psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual dimensions
Gomes & Higginson, 2006 Measuring QoL Stress on patient-centered tools that are valid and reliable. FACIT-PAL, EORTC QLQ, McGill QoL Questionnaire, Palliative Care Outcome Scale Symptom burden, psychological distress, social support
Higginson & Costantini, 2008 Physical Well-being Effective management of symptoms like pain is crucial. Pain and symptom management interventions. Symptom burden
Harding et al., 2012 Psychological and Spiritual Well-being Addressing anxiety, depression, and spiritual well-being is essential. Psychosocial and spiritual support interventions. Depression, anxiety, existential concerns
Boston et al., 2011 Spiritual/Existential Concerns Existential and spiritual struggles need addressing. Spiritual support interventions. Existential and spiritual struggles
Selman et al., 2017 Social Support and Psychosocial Support Strong social networks and practical assistance are beneficial. Practical and social support, counseling, support groups. Social support, psychological distress
Smith et al., 2014 Evidence on QoL Interventions Improved pain control and symptom relief contribute to enhanced QoL. Symptom management studies. Symptom burden
Brazil et al., 2021; Hudson et al., 2010 Family Caregivers Family caregivers play a crucial role in enhancing QoL. Education and training for caregivers, psychosocial support, bereavement support. Caregiver burden, physical and emotional strain, social impacts

Conclusion

Through a comprehensive examination of the literature, this review highlights the complex interplay of factors influencing quality of life in palliative care, reinforcing the need for holistic approaches that address both the physical and psychosocial aspects of patient care.

Understanding Hospice Care A Comprehensive Literature Review

Literature Review on Hospice Care

Literature Review on Hospice Care

Aspect Details Key References
Introduction Hospice care provides comfort, symptom management, and quality of life for individuals with terminal illnesses. Morrison & Meier, 2004; Hui et al., 2014
Key Principles and Goals Focuses on compassionate care, dignity, interdisciplinary support, and family-centered care. Connor, 2009; Higginson & Costantini, 2008; Harding et al., 2012; NHPCO, 2022
Eligibility Criteria Usually for patients with a prognosis of 6 months or less. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2022; Connor, 2009
Models of Care Includes home hospice, inpatient facilities, and care in hospitals or long-term care settings. NHPCO, 2022; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2022
The Hospice Team Comprises physicians, nurses, social workers, chaplains, and volunteers. Morrison & Meier, 2004; NHPCO, 2022
Benefits of Hospice Care Improved symptom management, quality of life, patient and family satisfaction, and reduced hospital readmissions. Smith et al., 2014; Brumley et al., 2007; Teno et al., 2004; Connor, 2009
Challenges and Considerations Includes timely enrollment, prognostic uncertainty, access disparities, and caregiver burden. Higginson & Sen-Gupta, 2000; Lunney et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2021; Brazil et al., 2021
Hospice vs. Palliative Care Hospice for end-of-life care when curative treatment is not pursued, unlike broader palliative care. Morrison & Meier, 2004; NHPCO, 2022
Future Directions Expanding access, integrating telehealth, and addressing non-cancer diagnoses. NHPCO, 2022; Pantilat et al., 2023; Lunney et al., 2003

Comparing End-of-Life Care Options

Feature Hospice Care Palliative Care Conventional Care
Focus Comfort, quality of life Relief of symptoms, alongside curative treatment Curative treatment, life extension
Typical Prognosis* 6 months or less Any stage of serious illness Any stage of illness
Goals Managing symptoms, emotional & spiritual support, end-of-life care Improving quality of life, alongside disease management Disease cure or slowing progression
Location of Care Home, hospice facility, hospital, nursing home Hospital, outpatient clinics, home, nursing home Hospital, clinics, home
Team Interdisciplinary team (doctor, nurse, social worker, etc.) Doctor, nurse, specialists, as needed (may include social workers) Doctors, nurses, specialists

Key Concepts in Palliative Care


 

Clinical empathy in healthcare


 

SHS literature review


 

Key articles in clinical empathy

 


Cultivation of clinical empathy


 

Friday, March 22, 2024

Register Now: Palliative Care-The Dignified Way of Living and Dying: Join Our Free Online Workshop

Enhancing Life's Journey: Free Webinar on Palliative Care

Enhancing Life's Journey: Free Webinar on Palliative Care

Join us for a transformative online workshop, "Palliative Care-The Dignified Way of Living and Dying," presented by the Model Palliative Care Division at Government Medical College, Kollam, Kerala. This complimentary session promises to enrich your perspectives on palliative care, offering insights into compassionate care practices for those facing serious illnesses.

Key Details

  • Host: Model Palliative Care Division, Government Medical College, Kollam, Kerala
  • When: April (Exact date, time, and link to be shared via email)
  • Registration: Secure your spot now at https://forms.gle/hXged7F1DXWmm3Lo6. Video access provided post-session.

Why Attend?

Delve into the world of palliative care with Dr. Sunilkumar Mupliyath Madhavan, an acclaimed figure in the field. With a background rich in Pain and Palliative Medicine from AIMS Kochi and further advanced studies from Cardiff, UK, Dr. Sunilkumar stands as a beacon of knowledge and compassion. As the Additional Director at the Trivandrum Institute of Palliative Sciences, his work extends beyond patient care to pivotal roles in training, research, and policy development, aimed at improving access to pain relief.

Expectations

Gain unparalleled insights from Dr. Sunilkumar’s extensive experience and compassionate approach to care. Understand the multifaceted nature of palliative care, from clinical practices to significant research endeavors.

Please ensure your email details are correct. Check your spam folder to avoid missing out on essential information regarding the webinar link and schedule.

Don’t Miss This Opportunity

Whether you’re a healthcare professional, a caregiver, or simply interested in learning more about palliative care, this workshop will provide valuable knowledge and skills to enhance your approach to care.

Register today and join us in April for an enlightening session that promises to be as inspiring as it is informative. We look forward to welcoming you to this significant event.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5qujJcSXdLUhRyFzufMkkA to get access to past and future events on research and compassionate care.

Thursday, March 21, 2024

Communication Skills Part 2 (Advanced) and Registration link for the next session

Insights from Advanced Communication Skills Session

Reflections on "Communication Skills Part 2 (Advanced)" Session

Reflecting on today's session titled "Communication Skills Part 2 (Advanced)" held on Thursday, 21st March, from 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm, Dr.Biju Raghavan explored the intricate dynamics of conveying difficult news with empathy, understanding, and skill.

Key Topics Covered

  • Techniques for breaking bad news
  • Understanding and managing collusion
  • Engaging in role-play exercises for delivering difficult news
  • Strategies for dealing with anger

Upcoming Seminar Announcement

Following this enriching experience, we are eager to invite you to our next educational endeavor. In April, we are hosting a free online seminar titled "Palliative Care-The Dignified Way of Living and Dying". Dr. Sunil Kumar, the esteemed Additional Director at Pallium India, will lead this session, organized by the Model Palliative Care Division. This seminar promises to be an enlightening exploration of palliative care's compassionate principles, aiming to foster a deeper understanding of its role in ensuring dignity in life and death.

For registration to the forthcoming session, kindly proceed by accessing the following link: https://forms.gle/6kCJLufEBjqmbY8b9

For those unable to attend today's session or wishing to delve into the discussions once more, the opportunity to watch the video now presents itself. You are also encouraged to subscribe to our YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5qujJcSXdLUhRyFzufMkkA for future sessions on compassionate care and research, ensuring you remain informed and engaged with our ongoing educational endeavors.

We encourage you to watch and reflect on the valuable lessons shared.

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Enhance Your Communication Skills: Join Our Free Online Workshop

Enhance Your Communication Skills: Join Our Free Online Workshop

We're excited to invite faculty, medical students, residents, nursing staff, nursing students, and volunteers to our upcoming free online workshop on communication skills. Hosted by the Model Palliative Care Division at Government Medical College, Kollam, this workshop is designed to refine your ability to connect empathetically with people facing health issues, peers, and the community. Our sessions are crafted to enrich your interactions in various settings, including wards, outpatient departments, and societal engagements. Participation is complimentary.

Workshop Details:

Communication Skills Part 1 (Basics)

  • Date: Wednesday, 20th March, 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm
  • Focus Areas:
    • Non-verbal communication techniques
    • Verbal communication: Do's and Don'ts
    • Enhanced history-taking approaches
    • Empathy in clinical practice

Communication Skills Part 2 (Advanced)

  • Date: Thursday, 21st March, 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm
  • Key Topics:
    • Techniques for breaking bad news
    • Understanding and managing collusion
    • Role-play exercises for delivering difficult news
    • Strategies for dealing with anger

Featured Speaker: Dr. Biju Raghavan, an expert in the field, will guide you through both sessions, sharing valuable insights and practical techniques.

This free online workshop promises to be an enriching experience, equipping you with the skills necessary for meaningful and impactful communication. Don't miss this opportunity to enhance your professional interactions and foster stronger connections.

Register now to secure your spot. We look forward to welcoming you to an engaging and transformative learning experience.

https://forms.gle/73UMKxcxARXucAQVA

Feel free to email us at gmckcare@gmail.com or reach out via WhatsApp at 8075745498. We're here to assist you and answer any questions you might have. Join us on this journey to mastering effective communication skills. See you online at the workshop!

If you're having trouble joining the Google Meet, consider watching the live stream on our YouTube channel instead. Here's the link: https://youtube.com/live/82twRxxP3pY. This offers a straightforward alternative to ensure you don't miss out on the event.