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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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