The Evaluation of Physicians' Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives.

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.

Medication-taking experiences in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review.

Background: Although attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common condition for which pharmacotherapy is considered an effective treatment, guidelines on the treatment of ADHD have been challenging to implement. Considering the views of patients and caregivers involved in medication-taking could help shed light on these challenges. Objective: This review combines the findings of individual studies of medication-taking experiences in ADHD in order to guide clinicians to effectively share decisions about treatment. Methods: Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, SCOPUS and CINAHL) were systematically searched for relevant published research articles. Articles were assessed for quality using a Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and synthesis was performed using meta-ethnography. Results: Thirty-one articles were included in the final synthesis, comprising studies of caregivers, paediatric patients and adult patients across seven countries. Findings were categorized into five different constructs, including coming to terms with ADHD, anticipated concerns about medication, experiences of the effects of medication, external influences and the development of self-management. The synthesis demonstrates that decisions surrounding medication-taking for ADHD evolve as the child patient enters adulthood and moves towards autonomy and self-management. In all parts of this journey, decisions are shaped by a series of 'trade-offs', where potential benefits and harms of medication are weighed up. Conclusions: This review offers a comprehensive insight into medication-taking experiences in ADHD. By considering the shifting locus of decision-making over time and the need for individuals and families to reconcile a variety of external influences, primary care and mental health clinicians can engage in holistic conversations with their patients to share decisions effectively.

Relationship between clinical quality and patient experience: analysis of data from the english quality and outcomes framework and the National GP Patient Survey.

PURPOSE: Clinical quality and patient experience are both widely used to evaluate the quality of health care, but the relationship between these 2 domains remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine this relationship using data from 2 established measures of quality in primary care in England. METHODS: Practice-level analyses (N = 7,759 practices in England) were conducted on measures of patient experience from the national General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS), and measures of clinical quality from the national pay-for-performance scheme (Quality and Outcomes Framework). Spearman's rank correlation and multiple linear regression were used on practice-level estimates. RESULTS: Although all the correlations between clinical quality summary scores and patient survey scores are positive, and most are statistically significant, the strength of the associations was weak, with the highest correlation coefficient reaching 0.18, and more than one-half were 0.11 or less. Correlations with clinical quality were highest for patient-reported access scores (telephone access 0.16, availability of urgent appointments 0.15, ability to book ahead 0.18, ability to see preferred doctor 0.17) and overall satisfaction (0.15). CONCLUSION: Although there are associations between clinical quality and measures of patient experience, the 2 domains of care quality remain predominantly distinct. The strongest correlations are observed between practice clinical quality and practice access, with very low correlations between clinical quality and interpersonal aspects of care. The quality of clinical care and the quality of interpersonal care should be considered separately to give an overall assessment of medical care.

What are the implications for practice that arise from studies of medication taking? A systematic review of qualitative research.

BACKGROUND: Despite several decades of evidence supporting the benefits of taking medications in various diseases and healthcare settings, a significant proportion of prescribed treatments are not taken. This review sought to synthesise qualitative research exploring experiences of medication taking around the world, and to determine whether there were consistent messages arising from these studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: 5 databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL) were systematically searched to identify published research papers using qualitative methodologies, which explored medication-taking experiences in patients, citizens, carers, relatives and clinicians. Data were extracted independently by at least two clinician reviewers. Implications for practice from individual papers were charted and coded using thematic content analysis. These were then cross-tabulated with research paper categories to explore emergent patterns with particular implications for practice. 192 papers from 34 different countries were included in the review. Implications for practice fitted into 11 categories: increase family involvement, increase clinician involvement, promote personalised management, address practical barriers, provide ongoing support, promote self-management, adopt a patient-centred approach, improve patient education, address system barriers, increase access to non-prescribing clinicians and improve clinician training. These implications for practice were generally evenly spread across research paper categories. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice from the published qualitative literature exploring medication-taking are notably consistent across research methods, disease categories and geographical settings. More recent clinical trials of interventions to improve adherence have started to draw on these findings by focussing on improving clinical interactions and involving patients in healthcare decisions. Promoting patient education and self-management have been widely advocated, and improvements at a system level have been frequently cited in studies from developing countries and those relating to communicable diseases. Regardless of the setting, clinicians and policymakers around the world can focus efforts to improve medication-taking by considering a number of consistently emerging findings.

Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters.

Patient evaluations of physician communication are widely used, but we know little about how these relate to professionally agreed norms of communication quality. We report an investigation into the association between patient assessments of communication quality and an observer-rated measure of communication competence. Consent was obtained to video record consultations with Family Practitioners in England, following which patients rated the physician's communication skills. A sample of consultation videos was subsequently evaluated by trained clinical raters using an instrument derived from the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview. Consultations scored highly for communication by clinical raters were also scored highly by patients. However, when clinical raters judged communication to be of lower quality, patient scores ranged from "poor" to "very good." Some patients may be inhibited from rating poor communication negatively. Patient evaluations can be useful for measuring relative performance of physicians' communication skills, but absolute scores should be interpreted with caution.

Wasting the doctor's time? A video-elicitation interview study with patients in primary care.

Reaching a decision about whether and when to visit the doctor can be a difficult process for the patient. An early visit may cause the doctor to wonder why the patient chose to consult when the disease was self-limiting and symptoms would have settled without medical input. A late visit may cause the doctor to express dismay that the patient waited so long before consulting. In the UK primary care context of constrained resources and government calls for cautious healthcare spending, there is all the more pressure on both doctor and patient to meet only when necessary. A tendency on the part of health professionals to judge patients' decisions to consult as appropriate or not is already described. What is less well explored is the patient's experience of such judgment. Drawing on data from 52 video-elicitation interviews conducted in the English primary care setting, the present paper examines how patients seek to legitimise their decision to consult, and their struggles in doing so. The concern over wasting the doctor's time is expressed repeatedly through patients' narratives. Referring to the sociological literature, the history of 'trivia' in defining the role of general practice is discussed, and current public discourses seeking to assist the patient in developing appropriate consulting behaviour are considered and problematised. Whilst the patient is expected to have sufficient insight to inform timely consulting behaviour, it becomes clear that any attempt on the part of doctor or patient to define legitimate help-seeking is in fact elusive. Despite this, a significant moral dimension to what is deemed appropriate consulting by doctors and patients remains. The notion of candidacy is suggested as a suitable framework and way forward for encompassing these struggles to negotiate eligibility for medical time.

Investigating the meaning of 'good' or 'very good' patient evaluations of care in English general practice: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine concordance between responses to patient experience survey items evaluating doctors' interpersonal skills, and subsequent patient interview accounts of their experiences of care. DESIGN: Mixed methods study integrating data from patient questionnaires completed immediately after a video-recorded face-to-face consultation with a general practitioner (GP) and subsequent interviews with the same patients which included playback of the recording. SETTING: 12 general practices in rural, urban and inner city locations in six areas in England. PARTICIPANTS: 50 patients (66% female, aged 19-96 years) consulting face-to-face with 32 participating GPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Positive responses to interpersonal skills items in a postconsultation questionnaire ('good' and 'very good') were compared with experiences reported during subsequent video elicitation interview (categorised as positive, negative or neutral by independent clinical raters) when reviewing that aspect of care. RESULTS: We extracted 230 textual statements from 50 interview transcripts which related to the evaluation of GPs' interpersonal skills. Raters classified 70.9% (n=163) of these statements as positive, 19.6% (n=45) neutral and 9.6% (n=22) negative. Comments made by individual patients during interviews did not always express the same sentiment as their responses to the questionnaire. Where questionnaire responses indicated that interpersonal skills were 'very good', 84.6% of interview statements concerning that item were classified as positive. However, where patients rated interpersonal skills as 'good', only 41.9% of interview statements were classified as positive, and 18.9% as negative. CONCLUSIONS: Positive responses on patient experience questionnaires can mask important negative experiences which patients describe in subsequent interviews. The interpretation of absolute patient experience scores in feedback and public reporting should be done with caution, and clinicians should not be complacent following receipt of 'good' feedback. Relative scores are more easily interpretable when used to compare the performance of providers.