首页> 外文OA文献 >Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview.
【2h】

Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview.

机译:评估初级保健中的咨询沟通质量:根据《卡尔加里-剑桥医学访谈指南》,全球咨询评级量表的初步可靠性。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor-patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations. DESIGN: Multiple ratings of simulated general practitioner (GP)-patient consultations by trained GP evaluators. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 21 GPs and six trained GP evaluators. OUTCOME MEASURES: GCRS score. METHODS: 6 GP raters used GCRS to rate randomly assigned video recordings of GP consultations with simulated patients. Each of the 42 consultations was rated separately by four raters. We considered whether a fixed difference between scores had the same meaning at all levels of performance. We then examined the reliability of GCRS using mixed linear regression models. We augmented our regression model to also examine whether there were systematic biases between the scores given by different raters and to look for possible order effects. RESULTS: Assessing the communication quality of individual consultations, GCRS achieved a reliability of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.79) for two raters, 0.80 (0.54 to 0.85) for three and 0.85 (0.61 to 0.88) for four. We found an average difference of 1.65 (on a 0-10 scale) in the scores given by the least and most generous raters: adjusting for this evaluator bias increased reliability to 0.78 (0.53 to 0.83) for two raters; 0.85 (0.63 to 0.88) for three and 0.88 (0.69 to 0.91) for four. There were considerable order effects, with later consultations (after 15-20 ratings) receiving, on average, scores more than one point higher on a 0-10 scale. CONCLUSIONS: GCRS shows good reliability with three raters assessing each consultation. We are currently developing the scale further by assessing a large sample of real-world consultations.
机译:目的:在模拟患者咨询中,研究全球咨询评估量表(GCRS:一种基于整个医疗访谈的卡尔加里-剑桥指南,评估整个医患咨询沟通效果的工具)的初始可靠性。设计:由训练有素的GP评估员对模拟全科医生(GP)-患者咨询进行的多重评分。地点:英国初级保健。参加者:21名全科医生和6名训练有素的全科医生评估员。观察指标:GCRS评分。方法:6名GP评分者使用GCRS对模拟患者进行GP咨询的随机分配视频记录进行评分。 42个咨询中的每个咨询均由四个评估者分别评估。我们考虑了分数之间的固定差异在所有绩效水平上是否具有相同的含义。然后,我们使用混合线性回归模型检查了GCRS的可靠性。我们增强了回归模型,以检查不同评分者给出的评分之间是否存在系统偏差,并寻找可能的订单效应。结果:评估个人咨询的沟通质量,GCRS对两个评估者的可靠性为0.73(95%CI 0.44至0.79),对三个评估者的可靠性为0.80(0.54至0.85),对四个评估者的可靠性为0.85(0.61至0.88)。我们发现,最少和最慷慨的评分者给出的分数平均差异为1.65(0-10分):调整此评估者的偏见将两个评分者的可靠性提高到0.78(0.53至0.83);三个为0.85(0.63至0.88),四个为0.88(0.69至0.91)。顺序影响很大,以后的咨询(在15-20级后)在0-10级上平均得分高出1分以上。结论:GCRS表现出良好的可靠性,三位评估者对每次咨询进行了评估。我们目前正在通过评估大量现实世界中的咨询样本来进一步扩展该规模。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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