Achim Mortsiefer1, Janine Immecke2, Thomas Rotthoff3, André Karger4, Regine Schmelzer4, Bianca Raski4, Jürgen In der Schmitten2, Attila Altiner5, Michael Pentzek2. 1. Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany. Electronic address: achim.mortsiefer@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany. 3. Deanery of Study and Department for Endocrinology and Diabetes, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany. 4. Clinical Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany. 5. Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the University of Rostock, Rostock 18057, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the summative assessment (OSCE) of a communication training programme for dealing with challenging doctor-patient encounters in the 4th study year. METHODS: Our OSCE consists of 4 stations (breaking bad news, guilt and shame, aggressive patients, shared decision making), using a 4-item global rating (GR) instrument. We calculated reliability coefficients for different levels, discriminability of single items and interrater reliability. Validity was estimated by gender differences and accordance between GR and a checklist. RESULTS: In a pooled sample of 456 students in 3 OSCEs over 3 terms, total reliability was α=0.64, reliability coefficients for single stations were >0.80, and discriminability in 3 of 4 stations was within the range of 0.4-0.7. Except for one station, interrater reliability was moderate to strong. Reliability on item level was poor and pointed to some problems with the use of the GR. CONCLUSION: The application of the GR on regular undergraduate medical education shows moderate reliability in need of improvement and some traits of validity. Ongoing development and evaluation is needed with particular regard to the training of the examiners. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our CoMeD-OSCE proved suitable for the summative assessment of communication skills in challenging doctor-patient encounters.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the summative assessment (OSCE) of a communication training programme for dealing with challenging doctor-patient encounters in the 4th study year. METHODS: Our OSCE consists of 4 stations (breaking bad news, guilt and shame, aggressive patients, shared decision making), using a 4-item global rating (GR) instrument. We calculated reliability coefficients for different levels, discriminability of single items and interrater reliability. Validity was estimated by gender differences and accordance between GR and a checklist. RESULTS: In a pooled sample of 456 students in 3 OSCEs over 3 terms, total reliability was α=0.64, reliability coefficients for single stations were >0.80, and discriminability in 3 of 4 stations was within the range of 0.4-0.7. Except for one station, interrater reliability was moderate to strong. Reliability on item level was poor and pointed to some problems with the use of the GR. CONCLUSION: The application of the GR on regular undergraduate medical education shows moderate reliability in need of improvement and some traits of validity. Ongoing development and evaluation is needed with particular regard to the training of the examiners. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our CoMeD-OSCE proved suitable for the summative assessment of communication skills in challenging doctor-patient encounters.
Authors: Simone Weyers; Iman Jemi; André Karger; Bianca Raski; Thomas Rotthoff; Michael Pentzek; Achim Mortsiefer Journal: GMS J Med Educ Date: 2016-11-15
Authors: K Radziej; J Loechner; C Engerer; M Niglio de Figueiredo; J Freund; H Sattel; C Bachmann; P O Berberat; A Dinkel; A Wuensch Journal: Med Educ Online Date: 2017
Authors: Craig Noronha; Margaret C Lo; Tanya Nikiforova; Danielle Jones; Deepa Rani Nandiwada; Tiffany I Leung; Janeen E Smith; Wei Wei Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Thomas Rotthoff; Martin S Ostapczuk; Klaus D Kröncke; Alexander Zimmerhofer; Ulrich Decking; Matthias Schneider; Stefanie Ritz-Timme Journal: Med Educ Online Date: 2014-09-12
Authors: Musa Cömert; Jördis Maria Zill; Eva Christalle; Jörg Dirmaier; Martin Härter; Isabelle Scholl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240