Dataset Information

Codebook for rating clinical communication skills based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The aim of the study was to confirm the validity and reliability of the Observation Scheme-12, a measurement tool for rating clinical communication skills. METHODS:The study is a sub-study of an intervention study using audio recordings to assess the outcome of communication skills training. This paper describes the methods used to validate the assessment tool Observation Scheme-12 by operationalizing the crude 5-point scale into specific elements described in a codebook. Reliability was tested by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients for interrater and intrarater reliability. RESULTS:The validation of the Observation Scheme-12 produced a rating tool with 12 items. Each item has 0 to 5 described micro-skills. For each item, the codebook described the criteria for delivering a rating from 0 to 4 depending on how successful the different micro-skills (or number of used jargon words) was accomplished. Testing reliability for the overall score intraclass correlation coefficients was 0.74 for interrater reliability and 0.86 for intrarater reliability. An intraclass correlation coefficient greater than 0.5 was observed for 10 of 12 items. CONCLUSION:The development of a codebook as a supplement to the assessment tool Observation Scheme-12 enables an objective rating of audiotaped clinical communication with acceptable reliability. The Observation Scheme-12 can be used to assess communication skills based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide.

SUBMITTER: Iversen ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7201796 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Codebook for rating clinical communication skills based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide.

Iversen Else Dalsgaard ED Wolderslund Maiken Overbeck MO Kofoed Poul-Erik PE Gulbrandsen Pål P Poulsen Helle H Cold Søren S Ammentorp Jette J

BMC medical education 20200506 1

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of the study was to confirm the validity and reliability of the Observation Scheme-12, a measurement tool for rating clinical communication skills.<h4>Methods</h4>The study is a sub-study of an intervention study using audio recordings to assess the outcome of communication skills training. This paper describes the methods used to validate the assessment tool Observation Scheme-12 by operationalizing the crude 5-point scale into specific elements described in a codeboo ...[more]

PMID: 32375756

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTeaching and assessment of communication skills have become essential in medical education. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) has been found as an appropriate means to assess communication skills within medical education. Studies have demonstrated the importance of a valid assessment of medical students' communication skills. Yet, the validity of the performance scores depends fundamentally on the quality of the rating scales used in an OSCE. Thus, this systematic review aimed at providing an overview of existing rating scales, describing their underlying definition of communication skills, determining the methodological quality of psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of the identified rating scales.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify psychometrically tested rating scales, which have been applied in OSCE settings to assess communication skills of medical students. Our search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubMed), reference tracking and consultation of experts. We included studies that reported psychometric properties of communication skills assessment rating scales used in OSCEs by examiners only. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was evaluated using the quality criteria of Terwee and colleagues.ResultsData of twelve studies reporting on eight rating scales on communication skills assessment in OSCEs were included. Five of eight rating scales were explicitly developed based on a specific definition of communication skills. The methodological quality of studies was mainly poor. The psychometric quality of the eight rating scales was mainly intermediate.DiscussionOur results reveal that future psychometric evaluation studies focusing on improving the methodological quality are needed in order to yield psychometrically sound results of the OSCEs assessing communication skills. This is especially important given that most OSCE rating scales are used for summative assessment, and thus have an impact on medical students' academic success.

Project description:BackgroundGenetic information is increasingly relevant across healthcare. Traditional genetic counseling (GC) may limit access to genetic information and may be more information and support than some individuals need. We report on the application and clinical implications of a framework to consistently integrate genetics expertise where it is most useful to patients.MethodsThe Clinical Genome Resource's (ClinGen) Consent and Disclosure Recommendations (CADRe) workgroup designed rubrics to guide pre- and post-genetic test communication. Using a standard set of testing indications, pre- and post-test rubrics were applied to 40 genetic conditions or testing modalities with diverse features, including variability in levels of penetrance, clinical actionability, and evidence supporting a gene-disease relationship. Final communication recommendations were reached by group consensus.ResultsCommunication recommendations were determined for 478 unique condition-indication or testing-indication pairs. For half of the conditions and indications (238/478), targeted discussions (moderate communication depth) were the recommended starting communication level for pre- and post-test conversations. Traditional GC was recommended pre-test for adult-onset neurodegenerative conditions for individuals with no personal history and post-test for most conditions when genetic testing revealed a molecular diagnosis as these situations are likely higher in complexity and uncertainty. A brief communication approach was recommended for more straightforward conditions and indications (e.g., familial hypercholesterolemia; familial variant testing).ConclusionsThe CADRe recommendations provide guidance for clinicians in determining the depth of pre- and post-test communication, strategically aligning the anticipated needs of patients with the starting communication approach. Shorter targeted discussions or brief communications are suggested for many tests and indications. Longer traditional GC consultations would be reserved for patients with more complex and uncertain situations where detailed information, education, and psychological support can be most beneficial. Future studies of the CADRe communication framework will be essential for determining if CADRe-informed care supports quality patient experience while improving access to genetic information across healthcare.

Project description:BackgroundPatient hand-offs at physician shift changes have limited ability to convey the primary team's longitudinal insight. The Patient Acuity Rating (PAR) is a previously validated, 7-point scale that quantifies physician judgment of patient stability, where a higher score indicates a greater risk of clinical deterioration. Its impact on cross-covering physician understanding of patients is not known.ObjectiveTo determine PAR contribution to sign-outs.DesignCross-sectional survey.SubjectsIntern physicians at a university teaching hospital.InterventionsSubjects were surveyed using randomly chosen, de-identified patient sign-outs, previously assigned PAR scores by their primary teams. For each sign-out, subjects assigned a PAR score, then responded to hypothetical cross-cover scenarios before and after being informed of the primary team's PAR.Main measureChanges in intern assessment of the scenario before and after being informed of the primary team's PAR were measured. In addition, responses between novice and experienced interns were compared.Key resultsBetween May and July 2008, 23 of 39 (59 %) experienced interns and 25 of 42 (60 %) novice interns responded to 480 patient scenarios from ten distinct sign-outs. The mean PAR score assigned by subjects was 4.2 ± 1.6 vs. 3.8 ± 1.8 by the primary teams (p < 0.001). After viewing the primary team's PAR score, interns changed their level of concern in 47.9 % of cases, their assessment of the importance of immediate bedside evaluation in 48.7 % of cases, and confidence in their assessment in 43.2 % of cases. For all three assessments, novice interns changed their responses more frequently than experienced interns (p = 0.03, 0.009, and <0.001, respectively). Overall interns reported the PAR score to be theoretically helpful in 70.8 % of the cases, but this was more pronounced in novice interns (81.2 % vs 59.6 %, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe PAR adds valuable information to sign-outs that could impact cross-cover decision-making and potentially benefit patients. However, correct training in its use may be required to avoid unintended consequences.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pre-recorded videotapes have become the standard approach when teaching clinical communication skills (CCS). Furthermore, video-based feedback (VF) has proven to be beneficial in formative assessments. However, VF in CCS with the use of pre-recorded videos from real-life settings is less commonly studied than the use of simulated patients. To explore: 1) perceptions about the potential benefits and challenges in this kind of VF; 2) differences in the CCC scores in first-year medical residents in primary care, before and after a communication program using VF in a curricular formative assessment. METHOD:We conducted a pre/post study with a control group. The intervention consisted of VF sessions regarding CCS, performed in a small group with peers and a facilitator. They reviewed clinical consultations pre-recorded in a primary care setting with real patients. Before and after the intervention, 54 medical residents performed two clinical examinations with simulated patients (SP), answered quantitative scales (Perception of Patient-Centeredness and Jefferson Empathy Scale), and semi-structured qualitative questionnaires. The performances were scored by SP (Perception of Patient-Centeredness and CARE scale) and by two blind raters (SPIKES protocol-based and CCOG-based scale). The quantitative data analysis employed repeated-measures ANOVA. The qualitative analysis used the Braun and Clarke framework for thematic analysis. RESULTS:The quantitative analyses did not reveal any significant differences in the sum scores of the questionnaires, except for the Jefferson Empathy Scale. In the qualitative questionnaires, the main potential benefits that emerged from the thematic analysis of the VF method were self-perception, peer-feedback, patient-centered approach, and incorporation of reflective practices. A challenging aspect that emerged from facilitators was the struggle to relate the VF with theoretical references and the resident's initial stress to record and watch oneself on video. CONCLUSION:VF taken from real-life settings seems to be associated with a significant increase in self-perceived empathy. The study of other quantitative outcomes related to this VF intervention needs larger sample sizes. VF with clinical patients from real healthcare settings appears to be an opportunity for a deeper level of self-assessment, peer-feedback, and reflective practices.

Project description:Background: Imparting communication skills has been given great importance in medical curricula. In addition to standardized assessments, students should communicate with real patients in actual clinical situations during workplace-based assessments and receive structured feedback on their performance. The aim of this project was to pilot a formative testing method for workplace-based assessment. Our investigation centered in particular on whether or not physicians view the method as feasible and how high acceptance is among students. In addition, we assessed the reliability of the method. Method: As part of the project, 16 students held two consultations each with chronically ill patients at the medical practice where they were completing GP training. These consultations were video-recorded. The trained mentoring physician rated the student's performance and provided feedback immediately following the consultations using the Berlin Global Rating scale (BGR). Two impartial, trained raters also evaluated the videos using BGR. For qualitative and quantitative analysis, information on how physicians and students viewed feasibility and their levels of acceptance was collected in written form in a partially standardized manner. To test for reliability, the test-retest reliability was calculated for both of the overall evaluations given by each rater. The inter-rater reliability was determined for the three evaluations of each individual consultation. Results: The formative assessment method was rated positively by both physicians and students. It is relatively easy to integrate into daily routines. Its significant value lies in the personal, structured and recurring feedback. The two overall scores for each patient consultation given by the two impartial raters correlate moderately. The degree of uniformity among the three raters in respect to the individual consultations is low. Discussion: Within the scope of this pilot project, only a small sample of physicians and students could be surveyed to a limited extent. There are indications that the assessment can be improved by integrating more information on medical context and student self-assessments. Despite the current limitations regarding test criteria, it is clear that workplace-based assessment of communication skills in the clinical setting is a valuable addition to the communication curricula of medical schools.

Dataset Information

Codebook for rating clinical communication skills based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide.

Publications

Codebook for rating clinical communication skills based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure