Cargando…

Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study

BACKGROUND: Patients treated for prostate cancer may present to general practitioners (GPs) for treatment follow up, but may be reticent to have their consultations recorded. Therefore the use of simulated patients allows practitioner consultations to be rated. The aim of this study was to determine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiwa, Moyez, Halkett, Georgia, Meng, Xingqiong, Berg, Melissa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25218798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-152
_version_ 1782336681939042304
author Jiwa, Moyez
Halkett, Georgia
Meng, Xingqiong
Berg, Melissa
author_facet Jiwa, Moyez
Halkett, Georgia
Meng, Xingqiong
Berg, Melissa
author_sort Jiwa, Moyez
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients treated for prostate cancer may present to general practitioners (GPs) for treatment follow up, but may be reticent to have their consultations recorded. Therefore the use of simulated patients allows practitioner consultations to be rated. The aim of this study was to determine whether the speciality of the assessor has an impact on how GP consultation performance is rated. METHODS: Six pairs of scenarios were developed for professional actors in two series of consultations by GPs. The scenarios included: chronic radiation proctitis, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) ‘bounce’, recurrence of cancer, urethral stricture, erectile dysfunction and depression or anxiety. Participating GPs were furnished with the patient’s past medical history, current medication, prostate cancer details and treatment, details of physical examinations. Consultations were video recorded and assessed for quality by two sets of assessors- a team of two GPs and two Radiation Oncologists deploying the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP). LAP scores by the GPs and Radiation Oncologists were compared. RESULTS: Eight GPs participated. In Series 1 the range of LAP scores by GP assessors was 61%-80%, and 67%-86% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. The range for GP LAP scores in Series 2 was 51%- 82%, and 56%-89% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. Within GP assessor correlations for LAP scores were 0.31 and 0.87 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Within Radiation Oncologist assessor correlations were 0.50 and 0.72 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Radiation Oncologist and GP assessor scores were significantly different for 4 doctors and for some scenarios. Anticipatory care was the only domain where GPs scored participants higher than Radiation Oncologist assessors. CONCLUSION: The assessment of GP consultation performance is not consistent across assessors from different disciplines even when they deploy the same assessment tool.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4176849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41768492014-09-28 Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study Jiwa, Moyez Halkett, Georgia Meng, Xingqiong Berg, Melissa BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: Patients treated for prostate cancer may present to general practitioners (GPs) for treatment follow up, but may be reticent to have their consultations recorded. Therefore the use of simulated patients allows practitioner consultations to be rated. The aim of this study was to determine whether the speciality of the assessor has an impact on how GP consultation performance is rated. METHODS: Six pairs of scenarios were developed for professional actors in two series of consultations by GPs. The scenarios included: chronic radiation proctitis, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) ‘bounce’, recurrence of cancer, urethral stricture, erectile dysfunction and depression or anxiety. Participating GPs were furnished with the patient’s past medical history, current medication, prostate cancer details and treatment, details of physical examinations. Consultations were video recorded and assessed for quality by two sets of assessors- a team of two GPs and two Radiation Oncologists deploying the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP). LAP scores by the GPs and Radiation Oncologists were compared. RESULTS: Eight GPs participated. In Series 1 the range of LAP scores by GP assessors was 61%-80%, and 67%-86% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. The range for GP LAP scores in Series 2 was 51%- 82%, and 56%-89% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. Within GP assessor correlations for LAP scores were 0.31 and 0.87 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Within Radiation Oncologist assessor correlations were 0.50 and 0.72 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Radiation Oncologist and GP assessor scores were significantly different for 4 doctors and for some scenarios. Anticipatory care was the only domain where GPs scored participants higher than Radiation Oncologist assessors. CONCLUSION: The assessment of GP consultation performance is not consistent across assessors from different disciplines even when they deploy the same assessment tool. BioMed Central 2014-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4176849/ /pubmed/25218798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-152 Text en © Jiwa et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jiwa, Moyez
Halkett, Georgia
Meng, Xingqiong
Berg, Melissa
Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
title Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
title_full Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
title_fullStr Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
title_full_unstemmed Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
title_short Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
title_sort rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? a simulated patient study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25218798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-152
work_keys_str_mv AT jiwamoyez ratinggeneralpractitionerconsultationperformanceincancercaredoesthespecialtyofassessorsmatterasimulatedpatientstudy
AT halkettgeorgia ratinggeneralpractitionerconsultationperformanceincancercaredoesthespecialtyofassessorsmatterasimulatedpatientstudy
AT mengxingqiong ratinggeneralpractitionerconsultationperformanceincancercaredoesthespecialtyofassessorsmatterasimulatedpatientstudy
AT bergmelissa ratinggeneralpractitionerconsultationperformanceincancercaredoesthespecialtyofassessorsmatterasimulatedpatientstudy