Literature DB >> 2023551

The accuracy of standardized patient presentation.

R M Tamblyn1, D J Klass, G K Schnabl, M L Kopelow.   

Abstract

The accuracy of standardized patient clinical problem presentation was evaluated by videotape rating of a random sample of 839 student-patient encounters, representing 88 patients, 27 cases and two university test sites. Patient-student encounters were sampled from a collaborative inter-university final-year clinical examination of fourth-year medical students which was conducted at the University of Manitoba and Southern Illinois University in 1987 and 1988. The accuracy, replicability and portability of standardized patient cases were evaluated. The average accuracy of patient presentation was 90.2% in 1987 and 93.4% in 1988. Perfect accuracy scores were obtained by 15 patients; however, 11 patients had average scores below 80% with the accuracy of presentation in some encounters being as low as 30%. There were significant differences in the accuracy score achieved by patients trained together for the same case in 6 of 35 possible comparisons. There was also a systematic trend for patients trained at Southern Illinois to be more accurate in their presentation than patients trained at the University of Manitoba. These differences were significant in 5 of the 15 cases used in the examination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2023551     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1991.tb00035.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  13 in total

1.  [Clinical safety in primary care. The systemic approach (I)].

Authors:  Francesc Borrell Carrió
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 1.137

2.  Examination of standardized patient performance: accuracy and consistency of six standardized patients over time.

Authors:  Lori A H Erby; Debra L Roter; Barbara B Biesecker
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-11-20

3.  Use of videotaped consultations in summative assessment of trainees in general practice.

Authors:  L M Campbell; J G Howie; T S Murray
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 4.  Canadian experience with structured clinical examinations.

Authors:  P Grand'Maison; J Lescop; C A Brailovsky
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-05-01       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  An instrument for assessment of videotapes of general practitioners' performance.

Authors:  J Cox; H Mulholland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-04-17

6.  How do physicians respond to patient's requests for costly, unindicated services?

Authors:  T H Gallagher; B Lo; M Chesney; K Christensen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 5.128

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

Authors:  Marie-Dominique Beaulieu; Michèle Rivard; Eveline Hudon; Claude Beaudoin; Danielle Saucier; Martine Remondin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-11-26       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  An observational study comparing quality of care in walk-in centres with general practice and NHS Direct using standardised patients.

Authors:  Clare Grant; Ruth Nicholas; Laurence Moore; Chris Salisbury
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-06-29

9.  Validity and reliability of the Standardized Orthopedic Assessment Tool (SOAT): a variation of the traditional objective structured clinical examination.

Authors:  Mark R Lafave; Larry Katz
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  Accuracy of portrayal by standardized patients: results from four OSCE stations conducted for high stakes examinations.

Authors:  Lubna A Baig; Tanya N Beran; Andrea Vallevand; Zarrukh A Baig; Mauricio Monroy-Cuadros
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.