Using standardized patients to measure professional performance of physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the nature of inaccuracies likely to occur when standardized patients (SPs) are used to measure physician behaviour and to evaluate the potential impact of these inaccuracies on estimates of physician performance. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Family physicians' offices. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen individuals, each portraying one of two patient scenarios, made a total of 179 visits to 92 family physicians who were participating in a separate randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of an educational workshop on implementation of preventive guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy of SPs' portrayal of the assigned scenarios and accuracy of their coding of physician performance, determined on the basis of audiotapes of the visits and correlated with indicators of physicians' preventive practices. RESULTS: Accuracy of portrayal of the patient scenario was 84.8% for the male SPs and 93.5% for the female SPs. Inaccuracies in portrayal had no impact on physician performance scores. Accuracy of coding of physician performance was 90.5% for the female SPs (kappa = 0.66) and 90.1% for the male SPs (kappa = 0.68). Coding inaccuracies occurred most frequently for assessment of alcohol consumption and advice against smoking. CONCLUSION: SPs can provide valid information about physicians' professional performance. However, standardization of their activities must not be taken for granted. It may be more difficult to obtain standardized coding for counselling activities, an aspect of physician visits for which SPs are particularly appropriate.

Comparative trial of a short workshop designed to enhance appropriate use of screening tests by family physicians.

BACKGROUND: Educational interventions that support the implementation of complex clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) require substantial time commitments from participants. We conducted a comparative study to evaluate if a 90-minute workshop would increase compliance with the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care as well as decrease the ordering of tests not the subject of specific recommendations. METHODS: Eighty-seven family physicians from Quebec participated in the study. Group assignment was initially randomized, but, owing to logistic problems, randomization was not maintained. After unannounced visits, 2 standardized patients coded the physicians' performance of 23 items recommended for inclusion in the periodic health examination (10 for men and 13 for women) and 8 items recommended for exclusion (4 for both men and women). The "exposed" physicians were visited within 4 to 6 months after the workshop. The "nonexposed" physicians were visited within 4 to 6 months after consent was obtained but before they attended the workshop. We used linear regression analysis to determine if exposure to the workshop resulted in improved performance. RESULTS: Exposure to the workshop was not associated with a difference in the adjusted mean score for items recommended for inclusion (12.07 for exposed physicians v. 12.35 for those not exposed; maximal and ideal score 23; r = -0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.63 to 1.08). However, workshop exposure was associated with lower adjusted mean scores for items recommended for exclusion (1.55 v. 3.17; maximal score 8, ideal score 0; r = -1.63; 95% CI = -2.50 to -0.75) and for other tests (3.59 v. 6.53; r = -2.95; 95% CI = -5.10 to -0.79). INTERPRETATION: A short workshop can decrease the ordering of unnecessary screening tests by family physicians. Given its low cost and its potential for general application, such an intervention can support the implementation of prevention CPGs.