Amy E Gillis1, Marie C Morris2, Paul F Ridgway3. 1. Department of Surgery, Tallaght Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin, Ireland. 2. Education Division, School of Medicine, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Education Division, School of Medicine, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland Department of Surgery, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Tallaght Hospital Campus, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Communication breakdown is a factor in the majority of all instances of medical error. Despite the importance, a relative paucity of time is invested in communication skills in postgraduate curricula. Our objective is to systematically review the literature to identify the current tools used to assess communication skills in postgraduate trainees in the latter 2 years of training and in established practice. METHODS: Two reviewers independently reviewed the literature identifying communication skill assessment tools, for postgraduate trainees in the latter 2 years of training and in established practice following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, and inclusion/exclusion criteria from January 1990 to 15 August 2014. DATABASES: PubMed/CINAHL/ERIC/EMBASE/PsycInfo/Psyc Articles/Cochrane. RESULTS: 222 articles were identified; after review, 34 articles fulfilled criteria for complete evaluation; the majority (26) had a high level of evidence scoring 3 or greater on the Best Evidence Medical Education guide. 22 articles used objective structured clinical examination/standardised patient (SP)-based formats in an assessment or training capacity. Evaluation tools included author-developed questionnaires and validated tools. Nineteen articles demonstrated an educational initiative. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed literature is heterogeneous for objectives and measurement techniques for communication. Observed interactions, with patients or SPs, is the current favoured method of evaluation using author-developed questionnaires. The role of self-evaluation of skill level is questioned. The need for a validated assessment tool for communication skills is highlighted. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
INTRODUCTION: Communication breakdown is a factor in the majority of all instances of medical error. Despite the importance, a relative paucity of time is invested in communication skills in postgraduate curricula. Our objective is to systematically review the literature to identify the current tools used to assess communication skills in postgraduate trainees in the latter 2 years of training and in established practice. METHODS: Two reviewers independently reviewed the literature identifying communication skill assessment tools, for postgraduate trainees in the latter 2 years of training and in established practice following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, and inclusion/exclusion criteria from January 1990 to 15 August 2014. DATABASES: PubMed/CINAHL/ERIC/EMBASE/PsycInfo/Psyc Articles/Cochrane. RESULTS: 222 articles were identified; after review, 34 articles fulfilled criteria for complete evaluation; the majority (26) had a high level of evidence scoring 3 or greater on the Best Evidence Medical Education guide. 22 articles used objective structured clinical examination/standardised patient (SP)-based formats in an assessment or training capacity. Evaluation tools included author-developed questionnaires and validated tools. Nineteen articles demonstrated an educational initiative. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed literature is heterogeneous for objectives and measurement techniques for communication. Observed interactions, with patients or SPs, is the current favoured method of evaluation using author-developed questionnaires. The role of self-evaluation of skill level is questioned. The need for a validated assessment tool for communication skills is highlighted. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Thelma A Quince; Paul Kinnersley; Jonathan Hales; Ana da Silva; Helen Moriarty; Pia Thiemann; Sarah Hyde; James Brimicombe; Diana Wood; Matthew Barclay; John Benson Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Marcelo Niglio de Figueiredo; Lorena Krippeit; Gabriele Ihorst; Heribert Sattel; Carma L Bylund; Andreas Joos; Jürgen Bengel; Claas Lahmann; Kurt Fritzsche; Alexander Wuensch Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240