Dataset Information

Development of the objective, structured communication assessment of residents (OSCAR) tool for measuring communication skills with patients.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although interpersonal and communication skills are essential to physician practice, there is a dearth of effective tools to meaningfully teach and assess communication skills. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to create a standardized tool for evaluation of communication skills for residents across specialties. METHODS: We designed an Objective, Structured Communication Assessment of Residents (OSCAR) tool, consisting of 4 clinical stations, to assess intern communication skills with relationship development, their establishment of case goals, and their organization and time management skills. Interns from 11 training programs completed the stations, with senior residents trained to function as standardized patients. The 4 stations' scenarios were a disruptive patient, handling a phone call for a narcotics refill, disclosing a medical mistake, and delivering bad news. RESULTS: Eighty-three interns completed OSCAR during orientation. The assessment took interns about 40 minutes to complete, and participants were given immediate feedback by the standardized patients. The total possible score for each station was 50. Resident performance was highest for disclosing a medical error (94%, 47 of 50), followed by handling a disruptive patient (90%, 45 of 50), disclosing bad news (86%, 43 of 50), and handling the phone call for the narcotics refill (62%, 31 of 50). Multivariate analysis of variance results indicated differences between residents from US and international medical schools, but there were no significant differences across specialties. Interrater reliability was excellent for each station (> 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: OSCAR is a practical tool for assessing interns' communication skills to provide timely results to program directors.

SUBMITTER: Caron A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3886453 | biostudies-other | 2013 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

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:PURPOSE:Recently, some attempts have been made to integrate lung ultrasound (LUS) teaching into medical curricula. However, current education studies of LUS are extremely heterogeneous due to the lack of evidence-based guidelines on LUS education. In particular, the assessment of competencies is poorly standardized and mostly relies on non-validated scales. A new validated tool, the objective structured assessment of lung ultrasound skills (LUS-OSAUS), has the potential to overcome these limitations. Therefore, we adopted the LUS-OSAUS tool to assess the competencies of a group of LUS-trained undergraduates. Existing no prior practical applications of the LUS-OSAUS, our aim was to investigate the practical utility of this tool and its applicability in the evaluation of US-trained medical students. METHODS:Eight undergraduates (two males, six females) were enrolled on a voluntary basis to receive a theoretical and practical training in LUS. Once completed their training, each student performed an LUS examination on a different patient hospitalized for respiratory symptoms. The same eight patients were also scanned by a senior resident in emergency medicine for a comparison with students' results. Students and the senior resident were tested by an examiner using the LUS-OSAUS tool. We compared the scores obtained by operators in all areas of competence of the LUS-OSAUS, the total scores, and the time needed to complete the sonographic task. RESULTS:Median students' score in the single items of the scale was significantly lower than the ones obtained by the senior resident (4.0 [3.3-5.0] vs. 5.0 [5.0-5.0]; p?<?0.0001). Students scored significantly lower than the senior resident in each item, except for B-line identification, choice of the correct transducer, and suggested focused questions. Median total score was also lower for students compared to the senior resident (70.5 [61.0-74.8] vs. 84.0 [83.5-84.3] (p?=?0.0116). Median time required to complete the examination was significantly higher for students (14.1 [12.8-16.1] vs. 4.7 [3.9-5.2] min, p?=?0.0117). CONCLUSIONS:The LUS-OSAUS tool allowed for a standardized and comprehensive assessment of student's competencies in lung ultrasound, and helped to discriminate their level of expertise from that of a more experienced operator. The scale also specifically tests the theoretical knowledge of trainees, thus making redundant the use of questionnaires designed for this purpose.

Project description:BackgroundProfessionalism and communication skills constitute important components of the integral formation of physicians which has repercussion on the quality of health care and medical education. The objective of this study was to assess medical graduates' professionalism and communication skills from the patients' perspective and to examine its association with patients' socio-demographic variables.MethodsThis is a hospital based cross-sectional study. It involved 315 patients and 105 medical graduates selected by convenient sampling method. A modified and validated version of the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Patient Assessment survey questionnaire was used for data collection through a face to face interview. Data processing and analysis were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 16.0. Mean, frequency distribution, and percentage of the variables were calculated. A non-parametric Kruskal Wallis test was applied to verify whether the patients' assessment was influenced by variables such as age, gender, education, at a level of significance, p ? 0.05.ResultsFemale patients constituted 46% of the sample, whereas males constituted 54%. The mean age was 36 ± 16. Patients' scoring of the graduate's skills ranged from 3.29 to 3.83 with a mean of 3.64 on a five-point Likert scale. Items assessing the "patient involvement in decision-making" were assigned the minimum mean values, while items dealing with "establishing adequate communication with patient" assigned the maximum mean values. Patients, who were older than 45 years, gave higher scores than younger ones (p < 0.001). Patients with higher education reported much lower scores than those with lower education (p = 0.003). Patients' gender did not show any statistically significant influence on the rating level.ConclusionGenerally patients rated the medical graduates' professionalism and communication skills at a good level. Patients' age and educational level were significantly associated with the rating level.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation science comprises a large set of theories suggesting interacting factors at different organisational levels. Development of literature syntheses and frameworks for implementation have contributed to comprehensive descriptions of implementation. However, corresponding instruments for measuring these comprehensive descriptions are currently lacking. The present study aimed to develop an instrument measuring care providers' perceptions of an implementation effort, and to explore the instrument's psychometric properties.MethodsBased on existing implementation literature, a questionnaire was designed with items on individual and team factors and on stages of change in an implementation process. The instrument was tested in a Norwegian study on implementation of evidence based practices for psychosis. Item analysis, factor structure, and internal consistency at baseline were examined.ResultsThe 27-item Implementation Process Assessment Tool (IPAT) revealed large variation between mean score of the items. The total scale scores were widely dispersed across respondents. Internal consistency for the total scale was high (Cronbach's alpha: .962), and all but one item contributed positively to the construct. The results indicated four underlying constructs: individual stages for behavioural change, individual activities and perceived support, collective readiness and support, and individual perceptions of the intervention.ConclusionsThe IPAT appears to be a feasible instrument for investigating the implementation process from the perspective of those making the change. It can enable examination of the relative importance of factors thought to be essential for implementation outcomes. It may also provide ongoing feedback for leaders tailoring support for teams to improve implementation. However, further research is needed to detect the instrument's properties later in the implementation process and in different contexts.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov code NCT03271242 (retrospective registered September 5, 2017).

Dataset Information

Development of the objective, structured communication assessment of residents (OSCAR) tool for measuring communication skills with patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure