BACKGROUND: Consultation skills are essential for general practice. Tools for measuring consultation skills in everyday practice are not well developed AIM: To examine and develop the content validity of the MAAS History-taking and Advice Checklist GP (MAAS-GP) tool which is used in The Netherlands for testing consultation skills, with simulated patients in United Kingdom general practice from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative research using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Alternate patients attending seven general practices in the north west of England. METHOD: Thematic analysis of the contents of patient and GP interviews, and of focus groups, mapping key themes to the MAAS-GP. RESULTS: There was strong agreement between patients and GPs on issues mapping to 46 out of 68 items of the MAAS-GP. Eight further MAAS-GP items were linked to issues only raised by patients and four to issues raised only by GPs. The remaining 10 items could not be related to issues raised by either. All of the issues raised by GPs could be mapped but 27 patient items could not. These were included in a revised checklist, the Liverpool MAAS (LIV-MAAS). CONCLUSION: the revised tool seems to have content validity in measuring consultation skills. Measurement of its relability is now required.
BACKGROUND: Consultation skills are essential for general practice. Tools for measuring consultation skills in everyday practice are not well developed AIM: To examine and develop the content validity of the MAAS History-taking and Advice Checklist GP (MAAS-GP) tool which is used in The Netherlands for testing consultation skills, with simulated patients in United Kingdom general practice from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative research using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Alternate patients attending seven general practices in the north west of England. METHOD: Thematic analysis of the contents of patient and GP interviews, and of focus groups, mapping key themes to the MAAS-GP. RESULTS: There was strong agreement between patients and GPs on issues mapping to 46 out of 68 items of the MAAS-GP. Eight further MAAS-GP items were linked to issues only raised by patients and four to issues raised only by GPs. The remaining 10 items could not be related to issues raised by either. All of the issues raised by GPs could be mapped but 27 patient items could not. These were included in a revised checklist, the Liverpool MAAS (LIV-MAAS). CONCLUSION: the revised tool seems to have content validity in measuring consultation skills. Measurement of its relability is now required.