Dataset Information

A Cross-Specialty Examination of Resident Error Disclosure and Communication Skills Using Simulation.

ABSTRACT:

Background?

Disclosure of medical errors is important to patients and physicians, but formal disclosure training during the graduate medical education curriculum is limited.

Objective?

We examined resident competence related to error disclosure, using standardized patient (SP) ratings of resident communication skills.

Methods?

All first-year residents from medicine, radiology, emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, and neurological surgery completed a 20-minute simulated session in which they were provided background information on a medical error they had made and were asked to disclose the error to an SP acting as a family member. Residents were then debriefed and completed a postscenario questionnaire. The SPs completed an 11-item communication assessment and 3 milestone rating tools on professionalism (PROF-1, PROF-3) and interpersonal and communication skills (ICS-1).

Results?

Ninety-six residents from a single institution participated toward the end of the intern year. Communication assessment scores ranged from 23% to 100% (mean [SD], 80.6 [17.0]). Mean (SD) milestone ratings across specialties were 2.80 ± 0.92 for PROF-1, 2.48 ± 0.92 for PROF-3, and 2.45 ± 0.92 for ICS-1. One-way analysis of variance revealed no significant differences among specialties on milestone or communication ratings. Residents who accepted personal responsibility for the error (84.55 [14.06]) received significantly higher communication ratings from SPs compared with residents who did not (66.67 [19.52], P < .001).

Conclusions?

This SP assessment of error disclosure by first-year residents from multiple specialties was feasible and acceptable. It revealed areas of improvement as well as considerable variation in communication skills and professionalism among residents.

SUBMITTER: Gardner AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6108361 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Cross-Specialty Examination of Resident Error Disclosure and Communication Skills Using Simulation.

Gardner Aimee K AK Lim Gi G Minard Charles G CG Guffey Danielle D Pillow M Tyson MT

Journal of graduate medical education 20180801 4

<h4>Background</h4>Disclosure of medical errors is important to patients and physicians, but formal disclosure training during the graduate medical education curriculum is limited.<h4>Objective</h4>We examined resident competence related to error disclosure, using standardized patient (SP) ratings of resident communication skills.<h4>Methods</h4>All first-year residents from medicine, radiology, emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery, and neurological surgery completed a 20-minute simulated sess ...[more]

PMID: 30154976

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceResidents must prepare for effective communication with patients after medical errors. The video-based communication assessment (VCA) is software that plays video of a patient scenario, asks the physician to record what they would say, engages crowdsourced laypeople to rate audio recordings of physician responses, and presents feedback to physicians.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of VCA feedback in resident error disclosure skill training.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2022 to May 2023 at 7 US internal medicine and family medicine residencies (10 total sites). Participants were second-year residents attending required teaching conferences. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2023.InterventionResidents completed 2 VCA cases at time 1 and were randomized to the intervention, an individual feedback report provided in the VCA application after 2 weeks, or to control, in which feedback was not provided until after time 2. Residents completed 2 additional VCA cases after 4 weeks (time 2).Main outcomes and measuresPanels of crowdsourced laypeople rated recordings of residents disclosing simulated medical errors to create scores on a 5-point scale. Reports included learning points derived from layperson comments. Mean time 2 ratings were compared to test the hypothesis that residents who had access to feedback on their time 1 performance would score higher at time 2 than those without feedback access. Residents were surveyed about demographic characteristics, disclosure experience, and feedback use. The intervention's effect was examined using analysis of covariance.ResultsA total of 146 residents (87 [60.0%] aged 25-29 years; 60 female [41.0%]) completed the time 1 VCA, and 103 (70.5%) completed the time 2 VCA (53 randomized to intervention and 50 randomized to control); of those, 28 (54.9%) reported reviewing their feedback. Analysis of covariance found a significant main effect of feedback between intervention and control groups at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.26 [0.45] vs 3.14 [0.39]; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.08-0.48; P = .01). In post hoc comparisons restricted to residents without prior disclosure experience, intervention residents scored higher than those in the control group at time 2 (mean [SD] score, 3.33 [0.43] vs 3.09 [0.44]; difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = .007). Worse performance at time 1 was associated with increased likelihood of dropping out before time 2 (odds ratio, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.06-7.84; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, self-directed review of crowdsourced feedback was associated with higher ratings of internal medicine and family medicine residents' error disclosure skill, particularly for those without real-life error disclosure experience, suggesting that such feedback may be an effective way for residency programs to address their requirement to prepare trainees for communicating with patients after medical harm.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06234085.

Project description:BackgroundResidents may benefit from simulated practice with personalized feedback to prepare for high-stakes disclosure conversations with patients after harmful errors and to meet American Council on Graduate Medical Education mandates. Ideally, feedback would come from patients who have experienced communication after medical harm, but medical researchers and leaders have found it difficult to reach this community, which has made this approach impractical at scale. The Video-Based Communication Assessment app is designed to engage crowdsourced laypeople to rate physician communication skills but has not been evaluated for use with medical harm scenarios.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the reliability of 2 assessment groups (crowdsourced laypeople and patient advocates) in rating physician error disclosure communication skills using the Video-Based Communication Assessment app.MethodsInternal medicine residents used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app; the case, which consisted of 3 sequential vignettes, depicted a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer. Panels of patient advocates who have experienced harmful medical error, either personally or through a family member, and crowdsourced laypeople used a 5-point scale to rate the residents' error disclosure communication skills (6 items) based on audiorecorded responses. Ratings were aggregated across items and vignettes to create a numerical communication score for each physician. We used analysis of variance, to compare stringency, and Pearson correlation between patient advocates and laypeople, to identify whether rank order would be preserved between groups. We used generalizability theory to examine the difference in assessment reliability between patient advocates and laypeople.ResultsInternal medicine residents (n=20) used the Video-Based Communication Assessment app. All patient advocates (n=8) and 42 of 59 crowdsourced laypeople who had been recruited provided complete, high-quality ratings. Patient advocates rated communication more stringently than crowdsourced laypeople (patient advocates: mean 3.19, SD 0.55; laypeople: mean 3.55, SD 0.40; P<.001), but patient advocates' and crowdsourced laypeople's ratings of physicians were highly correlated (r=0.82, P<.001). Reliability for 8 raters and 6 vignettes was acceptable (patient advocates: G coefficient 0.82; crowdsourced laypeople: G coefficient 0.65). Decision studies estimated that 12 crowdsourced layperson raters and 9 vignettes would yield an acceptable G coefficient of 0.75.ConclusionsCrowdsourced laypeople may represent a sustainable source of reliable assessments of physician error disclosure skills. For a simulated case involving delayed diagnosis of breast cancer, laypeople correctly identified high and low performers. However, at least 12 raters and 9 vignettes are required to ensure adequate reliability and future studies are warranted. Crowdsourced laypeople rate less stringently than raters who have experienced harm. Future research should examine the value of the Video-Based Communication Assessment app for formative assessment, summative assessment, and just-in-time coaching of error disclosure communication skills.

Project description:Background The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to apply the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) to evaluate the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and endotracheal intubation skills of resident dentists for stage assessment in standardized training. Methods A total of 146 third-year resident dentists were recruited and randomly assigned to perform either CPR or endotracheal intubation. Their performance was scored by experienced anesthesiologists with standardized scoring criteria. Participants were also asked to rated their self-assessed competence, willingness, and perceptions on training status using Likert-type scales in a questionnaire. Student’s ttest was applied to compare scores for CPR and endotracheal intubation performed by resident dentists with different characteristics. The results of the questionnaires were analyzed and visualized by the R package ‘Likert’. Significance was set at the P < 0.05 level. Results The mean OSCE score for endotracheal intubation (59.1 ± 12.5) was lower than that of CPR (72.4 ± 8.8). Participants with Master’s degrees scored higher than those with Bachelor’s degrees and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees in the assessment of CPR and endotracheal intubation. Low scores of self-assessed competence and willingness were observed, especially for endotracheal intubation. Resident dentists showed poor satisfaction on training volume and frequency of CPR and endotracheal intubation. Conclusion Resident dentists showed poor performance on CPR and endotracheal intubation assessed by the OSCE. Relatively low self-assessed competence and willingness were reported in endotracheal intubation. The medical emergency curriculum for resident dentists should be more consistent and standardized to help resident dentists enhance the proficiency of life support skills. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-022-03775-z.

Dataset Information

A Cross-Specialty Examination of Resident Error Disclosure and Communication Skills Using Simulation.

Background?

Objective?

Methods?

Results?

Conclusions?

Publications

A Cross-Specialty Examination of Resident Error Disclosure and Communication Skills Using Simulation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets