Abstract:Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) programs faced extraordinary challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined how ACPE-certified educators responded to maintain program delivery. Survey results ( n = 210) suggested a substantial and abrupt increase in remote delivery for CPE instruction and supervised clinical practice, primarily driven by those previously fully in-person. Respondents reported abrupt changes impacted 1152 students. Participants rated their utilization and helpfulness of professional, org… Show more
“…Congruent with our previous quantitative findings (Szilagyi, Tartaglia et al, 2022), the qualitative data identified consultation from ACPE member Communities of Practice (CoP) as a key resource for educators. Many viewed this as such an important source of support that they planned to maintain newly formed connections with their CoP postpandemic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…The informed consent process was completed electronically at the beginning of the survey. Survey development and recruitment methods were further detailed in Szilagyi, Tartaglia et al (2022). The research protocol was reviewed and acknowledged as an exempt study by the Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB00271136).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding spiritual care education in the COVID-19 era, [Szilagyi, Tartaglia et al, 2022] detailed ACPE-certified 1 educators' substantial and sudden shift to remote CPE and the resources they utilized to maintain program delivery during the pandemic. A recent special edition of the Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling included multiple articles based on an international survey on the impact of COVID-19 on professional chaplaincy.…”
Many Clinical Pastoral Education programs pivoted to remote delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our survey explored educators’ preparedness, self-efficacy, and views regarding remote Clinical Pastoral Education. Few respondents were either very (14.2%) or not at all (16.5%) prepared. Most were confident facilitating remote learning (69.8%–88.5%), believing remote Clinical Pastoral Education can achieve outcomes equivalent to in-person (59.1%). Six qualitative themes emerged: educator development, educator challenges, remote Clinical Pastoral Education efficacy, remote group dynamics, clinical practice/supervision implications, and benefits and opportunities.
“…Congruent with our previous quantitative findings (Szilagyi, Tartaglia et al, 2022), the qualitative data identified consultation from ACPE member Communities of Practice (CoP) as a key resource for educators. Many viewed this as such an important source of support that they planned to maintain newly formed connections with their CoP postpandemic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…The informed consent process was completed electronically at the beginning of the survey. Survey development and recruitment methods were further detailed in Szilagyi, Tartaglia et al (2022). The research protocol was reviewed and acknowledged as an exempt study by the Johns Hopkins Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB00271136).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding spiritual care education in the COVID-19 era, [Szilagyi, Tartaglia et al, 2022] detailed ACPE-certified 1 educators' substantial and sudden shift to remote CPE and the resources they utilized to maintain program delivery during the pandemic. A recent special edition of the Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling included multiple articles based on an international survey on the impact of COVID-19 on professional chaplaincy.…”
Many Clinical Pastoral Education programs pivoted to remote delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our survey explored educators’ preparedness, self-efficacy, and views regarding remote Clinical Pastoral Education. Few respondents were either very (14.2%) or not at all (16.5%) prepared. Most were confident facilitating remote learning (69.8%–88.5%), believing remote Clinical Pastoral Education can achieve outcomes equivalent to in-person (59.1%). Six qualitative themes emerged: educator development, educator challenges, remote Clinical Pastoral Education efficacy, remote group dynamics, clinical practice/supervision implications, and benefits and opportunities.
“…Finally, participants reported positive student experiences while acknowledging the challenging aspects of the CPE course structure: balancing the demands of CPE and their work responsibilities, the course's pace, and in-person and online interactions. Parallel to participants' opinions on online and in-person CPE learning, CPE educators and students the USA reported certain benefits of online or hybrid modalities: ensuring access to CPE; not reducing the quality of learning; and being as effective as inperson CPE [42][43][44]. However, they desired more in-person interaction and found online learning not without limitations [42,43].…”
Section: Cpe For Chaplaincy Education In Englandmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Parallel to participants' opinions on online and in-person CPE learning, CPE educators and students the USA reported certain benefits of online or hybrid modalities: ensuring access to CPE; not reducing the quality of learning; and being as effective as inperson CPE [42][43][44]. However, they desired more in-person interaction and found online learning not without limitations [42,43].…”
Section: Cpe For Chaplaincy Education In Englandmentioning
Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) is the predominant specialised training for healthcare chaplains in several national contexts. CPE is spiritual care education that uses experiential and action-reflection learning methods to train diverse participants. However, CPE is not established for chaplaincy training in England. Currently, chaplaincy education in England lacks standardisation, leading to inequalities in entry into the profession and inconsistent training and career pathways. CPE has the potential to address these issues. We examined changes associated with participating in CPE and participants’ perceptions about their learning experience. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of CPE as a viable chaplaincy education model in healthcare settings in England. Convergent mixed methods involved pre-post surveys and focus group sessions to examine the experiences and development of seven chaplains, with diverse experience levels and backgrounds, who participated in the pilot CPE unit in NHS England. We integrated thematic analysis and survey results. We identified four overarching themes: Development pathways, Catalysts for development, Advantages of CPE for chaplaincy education, and Experiences with CPE course structure. Participants developed along various pathways: confidence, reflective practice, emotional intelligence, listening and attending skills, diversity in chaplaincy care, and spiritual assessment. Survey results confirmed several themes, indicating gains in chaplaincy capabilities, emotional intelligence, and counselling self-efficacy. Participants emphasised the advantages and effectiveness of the CPE model. Quantitative and qualitative findings converged to provide rich evidence that CPE generated personal and professional development, improving chaplaincy practice. General learning pathways moved from personal development, through the interpersonal learning context, and translated into chaplain competency. Participants endorsed CPE, as a robust and effective training model for chaplaincy in the English context, for those entering the profession and experienced chaplains alike. We conceptualised preliminary models for chaplain development and learning pathways in CPE that need validation and refinement by future research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.