Ratings of physician communication by real and standardized patients.

Kevin Fiscella, Peter Franks, Malathi Srinivasan, Richard L Kravitz, Ronald Epstein
Author Information
  1. Kevin Fiscella: University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, USA. Kevin_Fiscella@urmc.rochester.edu

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patient ratings of physician's patient-centered communication are used by various specialty credentialing organizations and managed care organizations as a measure of physician communication skills. We wanted to compare ratings by real patients with ratings by standardized patients of physician communication.
METHODS: We assessed physician communication using a modified version of the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ) among a sample of 100 community physicians. The HCCQ measures physician autonomy support, a key dimension in patient-centered communication. For each physician, the questionnaire was completed by roughly 49 real patients and 2 unannounced standardized patients. Standardized patients portrayed 2 roles: gastroesophageal disorder reflux symptoms and poorly characterized chest pain with multiple unexplained symptoms. We compared the distribution, reliability, and physician rank derived from using real and standardized patients after adjusting for patient, physician, and standardized patient effects.
RESULTS: There were real and standardized patient ratings for 96 of the 100 physicians. Compared with standardized patient scores, real-patient-derived HCCQ scores were higher (mean 22.0 vs 17.2), standard deviations were lower (3.1 vs 4.9), and ranges were similar (both 5-25). Calculated real patient reliability, given 49 ratings per physician, was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.84) compared with the standardized patient reliability of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.39-0.73), given 2 ratings per physician. Spearman rank correlation between mean real patient and standardized patient scores was positive but small to moderate in magnitude, 0.28.
CONCLUSION: Real patient and standardized patient ratings of physician communication style differ substantially and appear to provide different information about physicians' communication style.

References

  1. J Healthc Manag. 1999 Nov-Dec;44(6):477-91; discussion 492-3 [PMID: 10662433]
  2. JAMA. 2005 Apr 27;293(16):1995-2002 [PMID: 15855433]
  3. J Fam Pract. 2000 Sep;49(9):796-804 [PMID: 11032203]
  4. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000 Nov;26(11):644-53 [PMID: 11098427]
  5. J Fam Pract. 2001 Feb;50(2):130-6 [PMID: 11219560]
  6. Psychol Assess. 2001 Jun;13(2):216-29 [PMID: 11433796]
  7. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Oct;16(10):668-74 [PMID: 11679034]
  8. JAMA. 2002 Jan 9;287(2):226-35 [PMID: 11779266]
  9. Med Care. 2002 Mar;40(3):190-200 [PMID: 11880792]
  10. Ann Fam Med. 2005 May-Jun;3(3):229-34 [PMID: 15928226]
  11. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(7):1516-28 [PMID: 16005784]
  12. Ann Fam Med. 2005 Sep-Oct;3(5):415-21 [PMID: 16189057]
  13. Soc Sci Med. 2006 Jan;62(2):422-32 [PMID: 15993531]
  14. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:12 [PMID: 16504145]
  15. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Jun;21(6):584-9 [PMID: 16808740]
  16. Health Serv Res. 2006 Dec;41(6):2290-302 [PMID: 17116121]
  17. Med Care. 2006 Dec;44(12):1092-8 [PMID: 17122713]
  18. Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 2;144(9):665-72 [PMID: 16670136]
  19. Med Care. 2002 Jun;40(6):485-99 [PMID: 12021675]
  20. Health Serv Res. 2003 Jun;38(3):789-808 [PMID: 12822913]
  21. Fam Med. 2003 Oct;35(9):643-8 [PMID: 14523662]
  22. Health Psychol. 2004 Jan;23(1):58-66 [PMID: 14756604]
  23. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2004;9(3):179-87 [PMID: 15316269]
  24. J Gen Intern Med. 1988 Sep-Oct;3(5):448-57 [PMID: 3049968]
  25. Acad Med. 1995 Jan;70(1):52-8 [PMID: 7826445]
  26. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Jan;70(1):115-26 [PMID: 8558405]
  27. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33 [PMID: 8628042]
  28. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997 Apr;54(4):352-8 [PMID: 9107152]
  29. JAMA. 1997 Sep 3;278(9):790-1 [PMID: 9286845]
  30. Fam Med. 1997 Oct;29(9):653-7 [PMID: 9354873]
  31. J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Nov;12(11):663-8 [PMID: 9383133]
  32. CMAJ. 1998 Jan 27;158(2):205-7 [PMID: 9469142]
  33. Nurse Pract. 1998 Feb;23(2):56-8, 63, 67-8 passim [PMID: 9513219]
  34. Am J Med. 1998 Feb;104(2):152-8 [PMID: 9528734]
  35. Diabetes Care. 1998 Oct;21(10):1644-51 [PMID: 9773724]
  36. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999 Aug;11(4):319-28 [PMID: 10501602]
  37. Med Care. 2004 Nov;42(11):1049-55 [PMID: 15586831]
  38. JAMA. 2000 Apr 5;283(13):1715-22 [PMID: 10755498]

Grants

  1. R01 MH064683/NIMH NIH HHS
  2. 1 R01 10601-A1/PHS HHS
  3. 5 R01 MH064683-03/NIMH NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Clinical Competence
Communication
Decision Making
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
New York
Patient Satisfaction
Patient Simulation
Personal Autonomy
Physician-Patient Relations
Primary Health Care
Process Assessment, Health Care

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0physicianstandardizedpatientcommunicationratingsrealpatients02HCCQreliabilityscorespatient-centeredorganizationsusing100physicians49symptomscomparedrankmeanvsgivenper95%stylePURPOSE:Patientphysician'susedvariousspecialtycredentialingmanagedcaremeasureskillswantedcompareMETHODS:assessedmodifiedversionHealthCareClimateQuestionnaireamongsamplecommunitymeasuresautonomysupportkeydimensionquestionnairecompletedroughlyunannouncedStandardizedportrayedroles:gastroesophagealdisorderrefluxpoorlycharacterizedchestpainmultipleunexplaineddistributionderivedadjustingeffectsRESULTS:96Comparedreal-patient-derivedhigher2217standarddeviationslower3149rangessimilar5-25Calculated78confidenceinterval[CI]71-08457CI39-073Spearmancorrelationpositivesmallmoderatemagnitude28CONCLUSION:Realdiffersubstantiallyappearprovidedifferentinformationphysicians'Ratings

Similar Articles

Cited By