Cargando…
Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters
Patient evaluations of physician communication are widely used, but we know little about how these relate to professionally agreed norms of communication quality. We report an investigation into the association between patient assessments of communication quality and an observer-rated measure of com...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27698072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558716671217 |
_version_ | 1783307693093552128 |
---|---|
author | Burt, Jenni Abel, Gary Elmore, Natasha Newbould, Jenny Davey, Antoinette Llanwarne, Nadia Maramba, Inocencio Paddison, Charlotte Benson, John Silverman, Jonathan Elliott, Marc N. Campbell, John Roland, Martin |
author_facet | Burt, Jenni Abel, Gary Elmore, Natasha Newbould, Jenny Davey, Antoinette Llanwarne, Nadia Maramba, Inocencio Paddison, Charlotte Benson, John Silverman, Jonathan Elliott, Marc N. Campbell, John Roland, Martin |
author_sort | Burt, Jenni |
collection | PubMed |
description | Patient evaluations of physician communication are widely used, but we know little about how these relate to professionally agreed norms of communication quality. We report an investigation into the association between patient assessments of communication quality and an observer-rated measure of communication competence. Consent was obtained to video record consultations with Family Practitioners in England, following which patients rated the physician’s communication skills. A sample of consultation videos was subsequently evaluated by trained clinical raters using an instrument derived from the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview. Consultations scored highly for communication by clinical raters were also scored highly by patients. However, when clinical raters judged communication to be of lower quality, patient scores ranged from “poor” to “very good.” Some patients may be inhibited from rating poor communication negatively. Patient evaluations can be useful for measuring relative performance of physicians’ communication skills, but absolute scores should be interpreted with caution. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5858640 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58586402018-03-26 Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters Burt, Jenni Abel, Gary Elmore, Natasha Newbould, Jenny Davey, Antoinette Llanwarne, Nadia Maramba, Inocencio Paddison, Charlotte Benson, John Silverman, Jonathan Elliott, Marc N. Campbell, John Roland, Martin Med Care Res Rev Empirical Research Patient evaluations of physician communication are widely used, but we know little about how these relate to professionally agreed norms of communication quality. We report an investigation into the association between patient assessments of communication quality and an observer-rated measure of communication competence. Consent was obtained to video record consultations with Family Practitioners in England, following which patients rated the physician’s communication skills. A sample of consultation videos was subsequently evaluated by trained clinical raters using an instrument derived from the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview. Consultations scored highly for communication by clinical raters were also scored highly by patients. However, when clinical raters judged communication to be of lower quality, patient scores ranged from “poor” to “very good.” Some patients may be inhibited from rating poor communication negatively. Patient evaluations can be useful for measuring relative performance of physicians’ communication skills, but absolute scores should be interpreted with caution. SAGE Publications 2016-10-03 2018-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5858640/ /pubmed/27698072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558716671217 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Empirical Research Burt, Jenni Abel, Gary Elmore, Natasha Newbould, Jenny Davey, Antoinette Llanwarne, Nadia Maramba, Inocencio Paddison, Charlotte Benson, John Silverman, Jonathan Elliott, Marc N. Campbell, John Roland, Martin Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters |
title | Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters |
title_full | Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters |
title_fullStr | Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters |
title_full_unstemmed | Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters |
title_short | Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters |
title_sort | rating communication in gp consultations: the association between ratings made by patients and trained clinical raters |
topic | Empirical Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5858640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27698072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558716671217 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT burtjenni ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT abelgary ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT elmorenatasha ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT newbouldjenny ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT daveyantoinette ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT llanwarnenadia ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT marambainocencio ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT paddisoncharlotte ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT bensonjohn ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT silvermanjonathan ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT elliottmarcn ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT campbelljohn ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters AT rolandmartin ratingcommunicationingpconsultationstheassociationbetweenratingsmadebypatientsandtrainedclinicalraters |