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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |