Search

Context: Subjective rating scales for communication skills may yield more personally meaningful responses than more standardised rating schemes. It is unclear, however, whether such evaluations may be overly biased by respondents' rating styles, which may lead to unreliable measurement of examinees' communication skills., Methods: Our study involved 212 students from the classes of 2005 and 2006 at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. All students were rated by actors depicting standardised patients (SPs) on the same seven cases using the 19-item Rochester Communication Rating Scale (RCRS). Different students were assigned to different actors playing the same SP. We assessed the extent to which actors' personal rating styles influenced the scores they assigned to students. Main outcome measures were: between-actor variability in responses; the degree to which actors' response styles contribute to overall scores, and improvements in reliability achieved by standardising actors' ratings., Results: There were statistically significant differences between actors in their mean assigned scores. Scores aggregated over 18 separate SP cases have an expected generalisability coefficient of 0.79. If raw RCRS scores are used, a total of 27 replications of the RCRS are required to achieve a Cronbach's alpha of 0.8; standardisation reduces this number to 18., Conclusions: Although actors are variable in their use of a standardised subjective scale of communication, such differences contribute to an acceptably small proportion of the total variance if scores are combined across a large number of cases. Reliability can be markedly improved by standardising scores across raters.

Background: The 5A (Ask, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) model, used to promote patient behavior changes in primary care, can also be applied to physical activity. Our goal was to assess primary care physicians' use of the 5A model in discussions with underserved populations about physical activity., Methods: We analyzed 51 audio-recorded, transcribed office visits on randomly selected patient care days and after-visit patient surveys with adults in 2 community health centers in Rochester, New York., Results: The patient sample was 51% African-American and predominantly female (70%), with the majority having a high school-level education or less (66%) and an annual household income < dollars 39,000 (57%). Physical activity was discussed during 19 of the 51 visits, which included 16 (84%) visits with "Ask"; 10 (53%) with "Advise"; 4 (21%) with "Agree"; 5 (26%) with "Assist"; and 0 with "Arrange" statements. Most discussions of physical activity contained several Ask or Advise statements but few Agree, Assist, or Arrange statements., Conclusion: Communication about physical activity that included Agree, Arrange, and Assist statements of the 5A model was infrequent. Health promotion interventions in underserved populations should target these steps and prompt patients to initiate communication to improve physical activity.

The goal of patient-centered communication (PCC) is to help practitioners provide care that is concordant with the patient's values, needs and preferences, and that allows patients to provide input and participate actively in decisions regarding their health and health care. PCC is widely endorsed as a central component of high-quality health care, but it is unclear what it is and how to measure it. PCC includes four communication domains: the patient's perspective, the psychosocial context, shared understanding, and sharing power and responsibility. Problems in measuring PCC include lack of theoretical and conceptual clarity, unexamined assumptions, lack of adequate control for patient characteristics and social contexts, modest correlations between survey and observational measures, and overlap of PCC with other constructs. We outline problems in operationalizing PCC, choosing tools for assessing PCC, choosing data sources, identifying mediators of PCC, and clarifying outcomes of PCC. We propose nine areas for improvement: (1) developing theory-based operational definitions of PCC; (2) clarifying what is being measured; (3) accounting for the communication behaviors of each individual in the encounter as well as interactions among them; (4) accounting for context; (5) validating of instruments; (6) interpreting patient ratings of their physicians; (7) doing longitudinal studies; (8) examining pathways and mediators of links between PCC and outcomes; and (9) dealing with the complexity of the construct of PCC. We discuss the use of observational and survey measures, multi-method and mixed-method research, and standardized patients. The increasing influence of the PCC literature to guide medical education, licensure of clinicians, and assessments of quality provides a strong rationale for further clarification of these measurement issues.

Purpose: Although patient-centered communication is associated with improved health and patient trust, information about the impact of patient-centered communication on health care costs is limited. We studied the relationship between patient-centered communication and diagnostic testing expenditures., Methods: We undertook an observational cross-sectional study using covert standardized patient visits to study physician interaction style and its relationship to diagnostic testing costs. Participants were 100 primary care physicians in the Rochester, NY, area participating in a large managed care organization (MCO). Audio recordings of 2 standardized patient encounters for each physician were rated using the Measure of Patient-Centered Communication (MPCC). Standardized diagnostic testing and other expenditures, adjusted for patient demographics and case-mix, were derived from the MCO claims database. Analyses were adjusted for demographics and standardized patient detection., Results: Compared with other physicians, those who had MPCC scores in the lowest tercile had greater standardized diagnostic testing expenditures (11.0% higher, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5%-17.8%) and greater total standardized expenditures (3.5% higher, 95% CI, 1.0%-6.1%). Whereas lower MPCC scores were associated with shorter visits, adjustment for visit length and standardized patient detection did not affect the relationship with expenditures. Total (testing, ambulatory and hospital care) expenditures were also greater for physicians who had lower MPCC scores, an effect primarily associated with the effect on testing expenditures., Conclusions: Patient-centered communication is associated with fewer diagnostic testing expenditures but also with increased visit length. Because costs and visit length may affect physicians' and health systems' willingness to endorse and practice a patient-centered approach, these results should be confirmed in future randomized trials.