Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Distribution of scores for the full sample.
Full sample (n = 503)
- Figure 2
Scatterplot illustrating the association between physician and patient scores.
- Figure 3
Distribution of scores for the subsample.
Subsample rated by trained raters (n = 55)
- Figure 4
Scatterplots illustrating associations between physician, patient, and rater scores.
Note: The gray lines are lines of best fit.
Tables
Instructions given to patients: “Thinking about the consultation which took place today, how good was the doctor at each of the following?a Please put an ✗ in 1 box for each row.” Very good Good Neither good nor poor Poor Very poor Doesn’t applyb Giving you enough time □ □ □ □ □ □ Asking about your symptoms □ □ □ □ □ □ Listening to you □ □ □ □ □ □ Explaining tests and treatments □ □ □ □ □ □ Involving you in decisions about your care □ □ □ □ □ □ Treating you with care and concern □ □ □ □ □ □ Taking your problems seriously □ □ □ □ □ □ Characteristic N (%) Sex Male 199 (39.56) Female 304 (60.44) Age, y 18-24 36 (7.16) 25-34 76 (15.11) 35-44 61 (12.13) 45-54 78 (15.51) 55-64 83 (16.50) 65-74 93 (18.89) 75-84 59 (11.73) 85+ 15 (2.98) Self-rated health Excellent 49 (9.74) Very good 163 (32.41) Good 179 (35.59) Fair 78 (15.51) Poor 34 (6.76) Ethnicity White 458 (91.05) Mixed 4 (0.80) Asian or Asian British 15 (2.98) Black or Black British 21 (4.17) Chinese 4 (0.80) Other 1 (0.20) Association Standardised Regression Coefficients (95% CI) P value Overall association 0.009 (–0.086 to 0.104) .854 Within-physician association 0.025 (–0.060 to 0.110) .565 Within-physician association adjusted for patient sociodemographics 0.023 (–0.064 to 0.110) .608 Within-physician association adjusted for patient sociodemographics and physician factorsa 0.051 (–0.044 to 0.146) .291 ↵a Restricted to 451 consultations where physician data were available.
Supplemental Figure & Table
Supplemental Figure and Table
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Supplemental data: Figure & Table - PDF file
The Article in Brief
The Evaluation of Physicians' Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives
Jenni Burt , and colleagues
Background Previous research into communication between patients and physicians has focused on series of appointments. This study compares physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of communication in individual appointments in order to examine where discrepancies arise and to learn more about doctors' insights into patients' perceptions of care.
What This Study Found Family physicians have a different view of what constitutes good communication compared to patients and trained clinical raters. Forty-five family physicians and 503 patients independently completed a questionnaire assessing physician communication quality immediately after their visits. Patient visits were video recorded and 55 were selected for assessment by trained clinical raters. Physicians' ratings of themselves were, on average, lower than patients' ratings (mean physician score 75; mean patient score 94). Sixty-three percent (319) of patients assigned physicians the maximum score of 100, while the mean trained rater score was 57. There was little correlation between communication scores of physicians and patients and between physicians and trained raters, and a moderate and statistically significant association between patients and trained raters.
Implications
- The authors suggest that the generally high scores assigned by patients could reflect a reluctance to report poor experiences and highlights the need for external peer assessment of communication skills in order to identify areas in which support and training are needed.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Effective healthcare communication with children and young people: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators
- Exploring the psychometric properties of the Working Alliance Inventory in general practice: a cross-sectional study
- Exploring the therapeutic alliance in Belgian family medicine and its association with doctor-patient characteristics: a cross-sectional survey study
- In This Issue: Teachable Moments for Patients, Practices, and Systems