PURPOSE: To evaluate chart review as a method of assessing residents' performances of physical examinations in an ambulatory care setting. METHOD: In 1992, nurse authors at the Affiliated Hospitals at Canton of the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine assessed whether 22 internal medicine residents performed ten components of the physical examination by interviewing patient volunteers immediately after the patients' examinations. A total of 89 patient interviewees were included in the analysis; these patients were all new outpatients who had been scheduled for initial visits to obtain complete histories and physical examinations. Charts for the same patients were then retrospectively reviewed. The residents and faculty were blinded to both the chart reviews and the interviews. Statistical methods used were Pearson correlational analysis and variance-component analysis. RESULTS: The interviews and chart reviews showed 81% agreement in component performance. Completeness of the physical examination (whether measured by chart review or interview) did not correlate with other standard methods of resident evaluation, and completeness did not show a significant association with characteristics of the residents and patients. Two of the 22 residents assessed were identified as having completeness scores so low as to be unsatisfactory. CONCLUSION: That residents were identified as failing to perform examination components suggests that chart reviews, especially when independently verified by patient interviews, may be a useful evaluation tool for identifying inadequate performance of components of the physical examination and may identify the need for remediation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate chart review as a method of assessing residents' performances of physical examinations in an ambulatory care setting. METHOD: In 1992, nurse authors at the Affiliated Hospitals at Canton of the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine assessed whether 22 internal medicine residents performed ten components of the physical examination by interviewing patient volunteers immediately after the patients' examinations. A total of 89 patient interviewees were included in the analysis; these patients were all new outpatients who had been scheduled for initial visits to obtain complete histories and physical examinations. Charts for the same patients were then retrospectively reviewed. The residents and faculty were blinded to both the chart reviews and the interviews. Statistical methods used were Pearson correlational analysis and variance-component analysis. RESULTS: The interviews and chart reviews showed 81% agreement in component performance. Completeness of the physical examination (whether measured by chart review or interview) did not correlate with other standard methods of resident evaluation, and completeness did not show a significant association with characteristics of the residents and patients. Two of the 22 residents assessed were identified as having completeness scores so low as to be unsatisfactory. CONCLUSION: That residents were identified as failing to perform examination components suggests that chart reviews, especially when independently verified by patient interviews, may be a useful evaluation tool for identifying inadequate performance of components of the physical examination and may identify the need for remediation.