Cargando…

Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview

OBJECTIVES: To investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor–patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations. D...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burt, Jenni, Abel, Gary, Elmore, Natasha, Campbell, John, Roland, Martin, Benson, John, Silverman, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948635/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24604483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339
_version_ 1782306803260850176
author Burt, Jenni
Abel, Gary
Elmore, Natasha
Campbell, John
Roland, Martin
Benson, John
Silverman, Jonathan
author_facet Burt, Jenni
Abel, Gary
Elmore, Natasha
Campbell, John
Roland, Martin
Benson, John
Silverman, Jonathan
author_sort Burt, Jenni
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor–patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations. DESIGN: Multiple ratings of simulated general practitioner (GP)–patient consultations by trained GP evaluators. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 21 GPs and six trained GP evaluators. OUTCOME MEASURES: GCRS score. METHODS: 6 GP raters used GCRS to rate randomly assigned video recordings of GP consultations with simulated patients. Each of the 42 consultations was rated separately by four raters. We considered whether a fixed difference between scores had the same meaning at all levels of performance. We then examined the reliability of GCRS using mixed linear regression models. We augmented our regression model to also examine whether there were systematic biases between the scores given by different raters and to look for possible order effects. RESULTS: Assessing the communication quality of individual consultations, GCRS achieved a reliability of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.79) for two raters, 0.80 (0.54 to 0.85) for three and 0.85 (0.61 to 0.88) for four. We found an average difference of 1.65 (on a 0–10 scale) in the scores given by the least and most generous raters: adjusting for this evaluator bias increased reliability to 0.78 (0.53 to 0.83) for two raters; 0.85 (0.63 to 0.88) for three and 0.88 (0.69 to 0.91) for four. There were considerable order effects, with later consultations (after 15–20 ratings) receiving, on average, scores more than one point higher on a 0–10 scale. CONCLUSIONS: GCRS shows good reliability with three raters assessing each consultation. We are currently developing the scale further by assessing a large sample of real-world consultations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3948635
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39486352014-03-12 Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview Burt, Jenni Abel, Gary Elmore, Natasha Campbell, John Roland, Martin Benson, John Silverman, Jonathan BMJ Open Medical Education and Training OBJECTIVES: To investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor–patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations. DESIGN: Multiple ratings of simulated general practitioner (GP)–patient consultations by trained GP evaluators. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 21 GPs and six trained GP evaluators. OUTCOME MEASURES: GCRS score. METHODS: 6 GP raters used GCRS to rate randomly assigned video recordings of GP consultations with simulated patients. Each of the 42 consultations was rated separately by four raters. We considered whether a fixed difference between scores had the same meaning at all levels of performance. We then examined the reliability of GCRS using mixed linear regression models. We augmented our regression model to also examine whether there were systematic biases between the scores given by different raters and to look for possible order effects. RESULTS: Assessing the communication quality of individual consultations, GCRS achieved a reliability of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.79) for two raters, 0.80 (0.54 to 0.85) for three and 0.85 (0.61 to 0.88) for four. We found an average difference of 1.65 (on a 0–10 scale) in the scores given by the least and most generous raters: adjusting for this evaluator bias increased reliability to 0.78 (0.53 to 0.83) for two raters; 0.85 (0.63 to 0.88) for three and 0.88 (0.69 to 0.91) for four. There were considerable order effects, with later consultations (after 15–20 ratings) receiving, on average, scores more than one point higher on a 0–10 scale. CONCLUSIONS: GCRS shows good reliability with three raters assessing each consultation. We are currently developing the scale further by assessing a large sample of real-world consultations. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3948635/ /pubmed/24604483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Medical Education and Training
Burt, Jenni
Abel, Gary
Elmore, Natasha
Campbell, John
Roland, Martin
Benson, John
Silverman, Jonathan
Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview
title Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview
title_full Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview
title_fullStr Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview
title_full_unstemmed Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview
title_short Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview
title_sort assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the global consultation rating scale, based on the calgary-cambridge guide to the medical interview
topic Medical Education and Training
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948635/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24604483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339
work_keys_str_mv AT burtjenni assessingcommunicationqualityofconsultationsinprimarycareinitialreliabilityoftheglobalconsultationratingscalebasedonthecalgarycambridgeguidetothemedicalinterview
AT abelgary assessingcommunicationqualityofconsultationsinprimarycareinitialreliabilityoftheglobalconsultationratingscalebasedonthecalgarycambridgeguidetothemedicalinterview
AT elmorenatasha assessingcommunicationqualityofconsultationsinprimarycareinitialreliabilityoftheglobalconsultationratingscalebasedonthecalgarycambridgeguidetothemedicalinterview
AT campbelljohn assessingcommunicationqualityofconsultationsinprimarycareinitialreliabilityoftheglobalconsultationratingscalebasedonthecalgarycambridgeguidetothemedicalinterview
AT rolandmartin assessingcommunicationqualityofconsultationsinprimarycareinitialreliabilityoftheglobalconsultationratingscalebasedonthecalgarycambridgeguidetothemedicalinterview
AT bensonjohn assessingcommunicationqualityofconsultationsinprimarycareinitialreliabilityoftheglobalconsultationratingscalebasedonthecalgarycambridgeguidetothemedicalinterview
AT silvermanjonathan assessingcommunicationqualityofconsultationsinprimarycareinitialreliabilityoftheglobalconsultationratingscalebasedonthecalgarycambridgeguidetothemedicalinterview