...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Family Practice >Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
【24h】

Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study

机译:评估癌症护理中的全科医生咨询表现:评估者的专业是否重要?模拟病人研究

获取原文

摘要

Background Patients treated for prostate cancer may present to general practitioners (GPs) for treatment follow up, but may be reticent to have their consultations recorded. Therefore the use of simulated patients allows practitioner consultations to be rated. The aim of this study was to determine whether the speciality of the assessor has an impact on how GP consultation performance is rated. Methods Six pairs of scenarios were developed for professional actors in two series of consultations by GPs. The scenarios included: chronic radiation proctitis, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) ‘bounce’, recurrence of cancer, urethral stricture, erectile dysfunction and depression or anxiety. Participating GPs were furnished with the patient’s past medical history, current medication, prostate cancer details and treatment, details of physical examinations. Consultations were video recorded and assessed for quality by two sets of assessors- a team of two GPs and two Radiation Oncologists deploying the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP). LAP scores by the GPs and Radiation Oncologists were compared. Results Eight GPs participated. In Series 1 the range of LAP scores by GP assessors was 61%-80%, and 67%-86% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. The range for GP LAP scores in Series 2 was 51%- 82%, and 56%-89% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. Within GP assessor correlations for LAP scores were 0.31 and 0.87 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Within Radiation Oncologist assessor correlations were 0.50 and 0.72 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Radiation Oncologist and GP assessor scores were significantly different for 4 doctors and for some scenarios. Anticipatory care was the only domain where GPs scored participants higher than Radiation Oncologist assessors. Conclusion The assessment of GP consultation performance is not consistent across assessors from different disciplines even when they deploy the same assessment tool.
机译:背景接受过前列腺癌治疗的患者可能会向全科医生(GPs)进行治疗随访,但可能不愿记录下他们的咨询。因此,模拟患者的使用可以评估执业医师的咨询水平。这项研究的目的是确定评估者的专业是否对GP咨询绩效的评级产生影响。方法在全科医生的两轮咨询中,为职业演员制定了六对情景。场景包括:慢性放射性直肠炎,前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)“反弹”,癌症复发,尿道狭窄,勃起功能障碍以及抑郁或焦虑。参加活动的全科医生获得了患者的既往病史,当前用药,前列腺癌的详细信息和治疗方法以及体格检查的详细信息。咨询录像被记录下来,并由两组评估员进行质量评估-一组由两名全科医生组成的团队和两名部署莱斯特评估包(LAP)的放射肿瘤学家。比较了GP和放射肿瘤学家的LAP得分。结果8名全科医生参加了比赛。在系列1中,GP评估者的LAP得分范围为61%-80%,放射肿瘤学家评估者为67%-86%。系列2中GP LAP评分的范围为51%-82%,放射肿瘤学家评估者为56%-89%。在GP评估员中,系列1和2中LAP得分的相关性分别为0.31和0.87。在放射肿瘤科医生内部,系列1和系列2的评估者相关性分别为0.50和0.72。 4位医生和某些情况下的放射肿瘤科医生和GP评估师分数存在显着差异。预期护理是GP得分高于放射肿瘤学评估者的唯一领域。结论即使来自不同学科的评估者使用相同的评估工具,对GP咨询绩效的评估也不一致。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号