Dataset Information

Advancing Our Understanding of Narrative Comments Generated by Direct Observation Tools: Lessons From the Psychopharmacotherapy-Structured Clinical Observation.

ABSTRACT: Background:While prior research has focused on the validity of quantitative ratings generated by direct observation tools, much less is known about the written comments. Objective:This study examines the quality of written comments and their relationship with checklist scores generated by a direct observation tool, the Psychopharmacotherapy-Structured Clinical Observation (P-SCO). Methods:From 2008 to 2012, faculty in a postgraduate year 3 psychiatry outpatient clinic completed 601 P-SCOs. Twenty-five percent were randomly selected from each year; the sample included 8 faculty and 57 residents. To assess quality, comments were coded for valence (reinforcing or corrective), behavioral specificity, and content. To assess the relationship between comments and scores, the authors calculated the correlation between comment and checklist score valence and examined the degree to which comments and checklist scores addressed the same content. Results:Ninety-one percent of the comments were behaviorally specific. Sixty percent were reinforcing, and 40% were corrective. Eight themes were identified, including 2 constructs not adequately represented by the checklist. Comment and checklist score valence was moderately correlated (Spearman's rho = 0.57, P < .001). Sixty-seven percent of high and low checklist scores were associated with a comment of the same valence and content. Only 50% of overall comments were associated with a checklist score of the same valence and content. Conclusions:A direct observation tool such as the P-SCO can generate high-quality written comments. Narrative comments both explain checklist scores and convey unique content. Thematic coding of comments can improve the content validity of a checklist.

SUBMITTER: Young JQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6795331 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Advancing Our Understanding of Narrative Comments Generated by Direct Observation Tools: Lessons From the Psychopharmacotherapy-Structured Clinical Observation.

Young John Q JQ Sugarman Rebekah R Holmboe Eric E O'Sullivan Patricia S PS

Journal of graduate medical education 20191001 5

<h4>Background</h4>While prior research has focused on the validity of quantitative ratings generated by direct observation tools, much less is known about the written comments.<h4>Objective</h4>This study examines the quality of written comments and their relationship with checklist scores generated by a direct observation tool, the Psychopharmacotherapy-Structured Clinical Observation (P-SCO).<h4>Methods</h4>From 2008 to 2012, faculty in a postgraduate year 3 psychiatry outpatient clinic compl ...[more]

PMID: 31636828

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of physician rating websites (PRWs) provide users the option to leave narrative comments about their physicians. Narrative comments potentially provide richer insights into patients' experiences and feelings that cannot be fully captured in predefined quantitative rating scales and are increasingly being examined. However, the content and nature of narrative comments on Swiss PRWs has not been examined to date. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to examine (1) the types of issues raised in narrative comments on Swiss PRWs and (2) the evaluation tendencies of the narrative comments. METHODS:A random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 3 PRWs (OkDoc, DocApp, and Medicosearch) and Google, and narrative comments were collected. Narrative comments were analyzed and classified according to a theoretical categorization framework of physician-, staff-, and practice-related issues. RESULTS:The selected physicians had a total of 849 comments. In total, 43 subcategories addressing the physician (n=21), staff (n=8), and practice (n=14) were identified. None of the PRWs' comments covered all 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; comments on Google covered 86% (37/43) of the subcategories, Medicosearch covered 72% (31/43), DocApp covered 60% (26/43), and OkDoc covered 56% (24/43). In total, 2441 distinct issues were identified within the 43 subcategories of the categorization framework; 83.65% (2042/2441) of the issues related to the physician, 6.63% (162/2441) related to the staff, and 9.70% (237/2441) related to the practice. Overall, 95% (41/43) of the subcategories of the categorization framework and 81.60% (1992/2441) of the distinct issues identified were concerning aspects of performance (interpersonal skills of the physician and staff, infrastructure, and organization and management of the practice) that are considered assessable by patients. Overall, 83.0% (705/849) of comments were classified as positive, 2.5% (21/849) as neutral, and 14.5% (123/849) as negative. However, there were significant differences between PRWs, regions, and specialty regarding negative comments: 90.2% (111/123) of negative comments were on Google, 74.7% (92/123) were regarding physicians in Zurich, and 73.2% (90/123) were from specialists. CONCLUSIONS:From the narrative comments analyzed, it can be reported that interpersonal issues make up nearly half of all negative issues identified, and it is recommended that physicians should focus on improving these issues. The current suppression of negative comments by Swiss PRWs is concerning, and there is a need for a consensus-based criterion to be developed to determine which comments should be published publicly. Finally, it would be helpful if Swiss patients are made aware of the current large differences between Swiss PRWs regarding the frequency and nature of ratings to help them determine which PRW will provide them with the most useful information.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician rating websites (PRWs) have been developed as part of a wider move toward transparency around health care quality, and these allow patients to anonymously rate, comment, and discuss physicians' quality on the Web. The first Swiss PRWs were established in 2008, at the same time as many international PRWs. However, there has been limited research conducted on PRWs in Switzerland to date. International research has indicated that a key shortcoming of PRWs is that they have an insufficient number of ratings.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the frequency of quantitative ratings and narrative comments on the Swiss PRWs.MethodsIn November 2017, a random stratified sample of 966 physicians was generated from the regions of Zürich and Geneva. Every selected physician was searched for on 4 rating websites (OkDoc, DocApp, Medicosearch, and Google) between November 2017 and July 2018. It was recorded whether the physician could be identified, what the physician's quantitative rating was, and whether the physician had received narrative comments. In addition, Alexa Internet was used to examine the number of visitors to the PRWs, compared with other websites.ResultsOverall, the portion of physicians able to be identified on the PRWs ranged from 42.4% (410/966) on OkDoc to 87.3% (843/966) on DocApp. Of the identifiable physicians, only a few of the selected physicians had been rated quantitatively (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 49.8% [273/548] on Google) or received narrative comments (4.5% [38/843] on DocApp to 31.2% [171/548] on Google) at least once. Rated physicians also had, on average, a low number of quantitative ratings (1.47 ratings on OkDoc to 3.74 rating on Google) and narrative comments (1.23 comment on OkDoc to 3.03 comments on Google). All 3 websites allowing ratings used the same rating scale (1-5 stars) and had a very positive average rating: DocApp (4.71), Medicosearch (4.69), and Google (4.41). There were significant differences among the PRWs (with the majority of ratings being posted on Google in past 2 years) and regions (with physicians in Zurich more likely to have been rated and have more ratings on average). Only Google (position 1) and Medicosearch (position 8358) are placed among the top 10,000 visited websites in Switzerland.ConclusionsIt appears that this is the first time Google has been included in a study examining physician ratings internationally and it is noticeable how Google has had substantially more ratings than the 3 dedicated PRWs in Switzerland over the past 2 and a half years. Overall, this study indicates that Swiss PRWs are not yet a reliable source of unbiased information regarding patient experiences and satisfaction with Swiss physicians; many selected physicians were unable to be identified, only a few physicians had been rated, and the ratings posted were overwhelmingly positive.

Dataset Information

Advancing Our Understanding of Narrative Comments Generated by Direct Observation Tools: Lessons From the Psychopharmacotherapy-Structured Clinical Observation.

Publications

Advancing Our Understanding of Narrative Comments Generated by Direct Observation Tools: Lessons From the Psychopharmacotherapy-Structured Clinical Observation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure