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

被引:55
作者
Burt, Jenni [1 ]
Abel, Gary [1 ]
Elmore, Natasha [1 ]
Campbell, John [2 ]
Roland, Martin [1 ]
Benson, John [3 ]
Silverman, Jonathan [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Cambridge Ctr Hlth Serv Res, Cambridge, England
[2] Univ Exeter, Sch Med, Exeter, Devon, England
[3] Univ Cambridge, Primary Care Unit, Cambridge, England
[4] Univ Cambridge, Sch Clin Med, Cambridge, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Medical Education & Training; Statistics & Research Methods; PERFORMANCE; COMPETENCE; INSTRUMENT; SKILLS;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, SKILLS COMMUNICATING
[2]  
Association of American Medical Colleges, 1999, 3 AAMC
[3]  
Bartman I, 2011, CATCHING HAWKS DOVES
[4]  
BMA, 2003, COMM SKILLS ED DOCT
[5]   Patient-physician communication assessment instruments: 1986 to 1996 in review [J].
Boon, H ;
Stewart, M .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 1998, 35 (03) :161-176
[6]  
Brennan R.L., 2005, EDUC MEAS-ISSUES PRA, V11, P27, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1745-3992.1992.TB00260.X
[7]  
COWAN D, 1992, CAN MED ASSOC J, V147, P1149
[8]  
Cowan D H, 1993, J Cancer Educ, V8, P109
[9]  
Department of Health, 2004, MED SCH DEL DOCT FUT
[10]   A reliability study of an instrument for measuring general practitioner consultation skills: the LIV-MAAS scale [J].
Enzer, I ;
Robinson, J ;
Pearson, M ;
Barton, S ;
Walley, T .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 2003, 15 (05) :407-412