MOLST education subcommittee finalizes provider slide deck, to circulate resources and refine EMS training

Members of the Department of Public Health’s MOLST education subcommittee reviewed and revised provider and EMS slide decks and agreed to circulate the updated materials and related resources for broader review, a meeting recording and transcript show.

The discussion centered on finishing the provider slide deck, confirming EMS training materials and quiz questions on CT Train, and clarifying the committee’s statutory responsibility for educating eligible providers versus broader public outreach.

Rebecca (Committee member) opened the public-education portion of the agenda and described recent community presentations she gives on advanced directives and MOLST, saying, “I’ve been doing education … and we’ve been getting really good responses.” She proposed making a slide deck and supplementary materials—PowerPoint, video and FAQs—that educators could use and adapt.

Barbara (Committee member) emphasized statutory limits on the committee’s responsibility, saying, “By law, there is MOST training for providers,” and urged the group to focus first on provider, EMS, social worker and nurse training that the statute requires. Members agreed to prioritize finalizing the provider slide deck and the EMS slides before undertaking broader public education.

The group approved several next steps and roles during the meeting: Malia (staff) will help orchestrate recordings and host the slide decks on CT Train; Joel (staff) will work with presenters to produce an EMS quiz; and Rebecca said she would circulate another copy of the provider slide deck and a set of resources for comment. At the meeting’s close the subcommittee set a follow-up meeting for June 10 at noon to continue reviewing the EMS slides and finalize outstanding items.

Committee members raised several content questions that will be reflected in the final materials. Cindy (Committee member) and others reported that lay audiences and senior groups are frequently unfamiliar with MOLST and want clear, accessible information; Cindy said the existing website material “hasn’t been updated in, I don’t know, 10 or 15 years.” The group agreed it would be useful to compile a short “what changed” summary to highlight differences between the previous and revised MOLST forms when the materials are published.

Members also debated wording around disabilities and qualification for MOLST. Dr. Shapiro (physician) and others queried whether language on the slide implying people with significant disabilities are automatically near the end of life could be misleading. The group opted to clarify the slide text and narration to state that a significant disability does not, by itself, disqualify someone from completing a MOLST and to ensure presenters narrate examples where appropriate.

On implementation details, the subcommittee confirmed that resources will be accessible via CT Train courses with a resource tab and that the provider slide deck will be formatted so presenters can narrate individual sections rather than relying on a single narrator. The committee also discussed formatting choices (font sizes, bolding key phrases) and small wording adjustments (replacing “vehicle” with “document” or “tool,” and using “cultural and linguistic differences”).

No formal motions or recorded votes occurred; the meeting produced direction to staff and volunteers to circulate drafts, collect comments, create an EMS quiz, and prepare an updated FAQ and “what changed” summary for the Department of Public Health website. The committee reserved broader public-education work for after the slide decks and statutory-mandate obligations are complete.

The subcommittee plans to reconvene to review the EMS slides and quiz questions and to consider website updates and any public-education materials once the core provider and EMS training materials are finalized.