High-Value, Cost-Conscious Communication Skills in Undergraduate Medical Education Validity Evidence for Scores Derived from Two Standardized Patient Scenarios

被引:10
作者
Natt, Neena [1 ]
Starr, Stephanie R. [1 ]
Reed, Darcy A. [1 ]
Park, Yoon Soo [2 ]
Dyrbye, Liselotte N. [1 ]
Hunderfund, Andrea N. Leep [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Sch Med, Rochester, MN USA
[2] Univ Illinois, Coll Med, Chicago, IL USA
来源
SIMULATION IN HEALTHCARE-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR SIMULATION IN HEALTHCARE | 2018年 / 13卷 / 05期
关键词
Standardized patient scenarios; High-value cost-conscious care; communication; validity; medical students; SHARED DECISION-MAKING; HEALTH SYSTEMS SCIENCE; TEACHING HIGH-VALUE; CLINICAL-PERFORMANCE; CARE-SYSTEM; RELIABILITY; RESIDENTS; COMPETENCES; FRAMEWORK; STUDENTS;
D O I
10.1097/SIH.0000000000000316
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Training in high-value, cost-conscious care (HVCCC) is increasingly being incorporated into medical school curricula, but students may have limited opportunities to engage patients in HVCCC conversations. The aim of this study was to develop two standardized patient scenarios with associated checklists, hypothesizing that resulting scores would allow for valid formative assessments of HVCCC communication skills. Methods: Scenarios were designed to generate a less-is-more conversation (in response to a patient requesting an unnecessary test) and a shared decision-making conversation (in response to a patient choosing between multiple effective treatment options). Checklists were developed by experts and informed by the existing literature. Validity evidence was collected from content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences of testing. Results: Ninety-three third-year medical students participated during 2014-2015. Mean checklist scores were 79% (SD = 18, Cronbach alpha = 0.72) and 72% (SD = 13, Cronbach alpha = 0.62) for the less-is-more and shared decision-making scenarios, respectively. Checklist scores correlated with global ratings of performance (r = 0.65 and 0.54, respectively, both P < 0.001), and overall interrater reliability was good (r = 0.66). Checklist scores discriminated between higher and lower performers (discrimination indices of 0.84 and 0.65, respectively, both P < 0.001). Most students (83/90, 92%) agreed that the session improved their HVCCC communication skills. Conclusions: This study provides validity evidence supporting the use of scores derived from two standardized patient scenarios for formative assessment of HVCCC communication skills among third-year medical students. These scenarios can help equip students with practical, patient-centered strategies for promoting value in clinical encounters.
引用
收藏
页码:316 / 323
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], ASSESSMENTS HLTH PRO
[2]  
[Anonymous], HIGH VAL CAR COURS
[3]  
[Anonymous], HIGH VAL CAR
[4]  
[Anonymous], CHOOS WISELY
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2014, ETS standards for quality and fairness
[6]   Sources of validity evidence for an internal medicine student evaluation system: an evaluative study of assessment methods [J].
Auewarakul, C ;
Downing, SM ;
Jaturatamrong, U ;
Praditsuwan, R .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2005, 39 (03) :276-283
[7]   Assessing clinical communication skills in physicians: are the skills context specific or generalizable [J].
Baig, Lubna A. ;
Violato, Claudio ;
Crutcher, Rodney A. .
BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2009, 9
[8]   The Triple Aim: Care, health, and cost [J].
Berwick, Donald M. ;
Nolan, Thomas W. ;
Whittington, John .
HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2008, 27 (03) :759-769
[9]   A systematic review of the reliability of objective structured clinical examination scores [J].
Brannick, Michael T. ;
Erol-Korkmaz, H. Tugba ;
Prewett, Matthew .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2011, 45 (12) :1181-1189
[10]  
Cicchetti D. V., 1994, Psychol Assessment, V6, P284, DOI [DOI 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284, 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284]