Ratings of physician communication by real and standardized patients

被引:77
作者
Fiscella, Kevin
Franks, Peter
Srinivasan, Malathi
Kravitz, Richard L.
Epstein, Konald
机构
[1] Univ Rochester, Sch Med, Rochester, NY USA
[2] Univ Calif Davis, Sch Med, Davis, CA 95616 USA
关键词
physician-patient relations; clinical competence; reproducibility of results; patient simulation; PRIMARY-CARE PHYSICIANS; CENTERED COMMUNICATION; CONSUMER ASSESSMENT; PATIENTS REQUESTS; MANAGED CARE; HEALTH PLANS; QUALITY; SKILLS; PREDICTORS; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1370/afm.643
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
PURPOSE Patient ratings of physician's patient-centered communication are used by various specialty credentialing organizations and managed care organizations, as a measure of physician communication skills. We wanted to compare ratings by real patients with ratings by standardized patients of physician communication. METHODS We assessed physician communication using a modified version of the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ) among a sample of 100 community physicians. The HCCQ measures physician autonomy support, a key dimension in patient-centered communication. For each physician, the questionnaire was completed by roughly 49 real patients and 2 unannounced standardized patients. Standardized patients portrayed 2 roles: gastroesophageal disorder reflux symptoms and poorly characterized chest pain with multiple unexplained symptoms. We compared the distribution, reliability, and physician rank derived from using real and standardized patients after adjusting for patient, physician, and standardized patient effects. RESULTS There were real and standardized patient ratings for 96 of the 100 physicians. Compared with standardized patient scores, real-patient-derived HCCQ scores were higher (mean 22.0 vs 17.2), standard deviations were lower (3.1 vs 4.9), and ranges were similar (both 5-25). Calculated real patient reliability, given 49 ratings per physician, was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.84) compared with the standardized patient reliability of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.39-0.73), given 2 ratings per physician. Spearman rank correlation between mean real patient and standardized patient scores was positive but small to moderate in magnitude, 0.28. CONCLUSION Real patient and standardized patient ratings of physician communication style differ substantially and appear to provide different information about physicians' communication style.
引用
收藏
页码:151 / 158
页数:8
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], Envisioning the National Health Care Quality Report
[2]  
Bosker RJ., 1999, MULTILEVEL ANAL INTR
[3]  
Carney P A, 1998, Nurse Pract, V23, P56
[4]   A STANDARDIZED-PATIENT ASSESSMENT OF A CONTINUING MEDICAL-EDUCATION PROGRAM TO IMPROVE PHYSICIANS CANCER-CONTROL CLINICAL SKILLS [J].
CARNEY, PA ;
DIETRICH, AJ ;
FREEMAN, DH ;
MOTT, LA .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1995, 70 (01) :52-58
[5]  
Cecil D W, 1997, Fam Med, V29, P653
[6]   Patients' global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care [J].
Chang, JT ;
Hays, RD ;
Shekelle, PG ;
MacLean, CH ;
Solomon, DH ;
Reuben, DB ;
Roth, CP ;
Kamberg, CJ ;
Adams, J ;
Young, RT ;
Wenger, NS .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2006, 144 (09) :665-672
[7]  
Chessman AW, 2003, FAM MED, V35, P643
[8]  
Colliver J A, 1997, JAMA, V278, P790, DOI 10.1001/jama.278.9.790
[9]   Defining and assessing professional competence [J].
Epstein, RM ;
Hundert, EM .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2002, 287 (02) :226-235
[10]   Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues [J].
Epstein, RM ;
Franks, P ;
Fiscella, K ;
Shields, CG ;
Meldrum, SC ;
Kravitz, RL ;
Duberstein, PR .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2005, 61 (07) :1516-1528