Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBurt, J
dc.contributor.authorAbel, G
dc.contributor.authorElliott, MN
dc.contributor.authorElmore, N
dc.contributor.authorNewbould, J
dc.contributor.authorDavey, A
dc.contributor.authorLlanwarne, N
dc.contributor.authorMaramba, Inocencio Daniel
dc.contributor.authorPaddison, C
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, J
dc.contributor.authorRoland, M
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-10T09:32:22Z
dc.date.available2018-09-10T09:32:22Z
dc.date.issued2018-07
dc.identifier.issn1544-1709
dc.identifier.issn1544-1717
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/12291
dc.descriptionNo embargo required, as per policy update http://www.annfammed.org/site/misc/pdfsanddocs/PrepublicationPolicy.pdf
dc.description.abstract

PURPOSE: To examine how family physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of physician-patient communication compare by analysis of individual appointments. METHODS: Analysis of survey data from patients attending face-to-face appointments with 45 family physicians at 13 practices in England. Immediately post-appointment, patients and physicians independently completed a questionnaire including 7 items assessing communication quality. A sample of videotaped appointments was assessed by trained clinical raters, using the same 7 communication items. Patient, physician, and rater communication scores were compared using correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Included were 503 physician-patient pairs; of those, 55 appointments were also evaluated by trained clinical raters. Physicians scored themselves, on average, lower than patients (mean physician score 74.5; mean patient score 94.4); 63.4% (319) of patient-reported scores were the maximum of 100. The mean of rater scores from 55 appointments was 57.3. There was a near-zero correlation coefficient between physician-reported and patient-reported communication scores (0.009, P = .854), and between physician-reported and trained rater-reported communication scores (-0.006, P = .69). There was a moderate and statistically significant association, however, between patient and trained-rater scores (0.35, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of correlation between physician scores and those of others indicates that physicians' perceptions of good communication during their appointments may differ from those of external peer raters and patients. Physicians may not be aware of how patients experience their communication practices; peer assessment of communication skills is an important approach in identifying areas for improvement.

dc.format.extent330-337
dc.format.mediumPrint
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAnnals of Family Medicine
dc.subjectphysician-patient relations
dc.subjecthealth care surveys
dc.subjectquality of health care
dc.subjectpatient satisfaction
dc.subjectpatient experience
dc.subjectphysician-patient communication
dc.subjecthealth care quality measurement
dc.titleThe Evaluation of Physicians’ Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeComparative Study
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.typeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000438252900011&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issue4
plymouth.volume16
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalThe Annals of Family Medicine
dc.identifier.doi10.1370/afm.2241
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health/Peninsula Medical School
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-02-27
dc.rights.embargodate2020-1-31
dc.identifier.eissn1544-1717
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1370/afm.2241
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-07
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV