C-B4-01: Educator Experience with Group Interactive Dialogue to Educate and Activate (IDEA) Using Conversation Maps

• Published in: Clinical medicine & research Vol. 8; no. 1; p. 47
• Main Authors: Sperl-Hillen, J. M, Beaton, S. J, Fernandes, O., Von Worley, A., Hanson, A. M, Baumer, D., Lavin-Tompkins, J. M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Marshfield Clinic 01.03.2010
• Subjects: SELECTED ABSTRACTS - HMORN 2009: Diabetes
• ISSN: 1539-4182; 1554-6179
• DOI: 10.3121/cmr.8.1.47-a

Aims: In order to improve self- efficacy and clinical outcomes for people with diabetes, new approaches using more interactive methods of group education are being promoted. We report results of an educator evaluation of IDEA to assist others who may be interested in starting similar groups in their care settings. Methods: A qualitative analysis was conducted as part of an ongoing randomized trial comparing two different educational interventions (Group IDEA and Individual Education) to Usual Care. As part of the study, educators at HealthPartners clinics in Minneapolis, MN and ABQ Health Partners in Albuquerque, NM were trained on how to use Conversation Maps (CM). All educators completed a Likert scale questionnaire after each CM session with responses from 1–10 (10 being the best). An open- ended evaluation form was also used to solicit positive and negative opinions about the sessions. Analysis: The data consisted of 48 nurse and dietitian evaluations from two sites. The mean Likert scores of the educational experience were calculated and compared for each site and for each of the four CM topics (general information, monitoring, nutrition, and complications). All eight research team members also reviewed answers to the open-ended questions and group consensus was used to describe positive and negative themes. Results: Educator rated Likert scores of map sessions were excellent (mean scores for Maps 1, 2, 3, 4: Overall success 8.3, 7.6, 7.7, 8.8; Ease and comfort levels in facilitation 8.9, 8.9, 9.2, 9.5; Patient motivation to self-manage 7.7, 6.9, 8, 8.8). Scores did not differ significantly across sites or between maps. Positive comments on the maps outweighed the negatives. The challenges identified were: Disruptive (especially angry or negative) people; Distracting topics raised by patients and late arrivals; Variable reading levels among patients (too hard or too easy); and Not enough time to cover the content (especially nutrition). Conclusions: The IDEA method was perceived positively by educators due to its ability to promote patient interaction, sharing, and meaningful discussion. To be successful, however, educators need tips and practice on handling disruptive patients, distractions, variance in literacy, and covering intended nutritional content in a group context.