Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBurt, J
dc.contributor.authorAbel, G
dc.contributor.authorElmore, N
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, J
dc.contributor.authorRoland, M
dc.contributor.authorBenson, J
dc.contributor.authorSilverman, J
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-29T10:31:01Z
dc.date.issued2014-03-06
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: 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.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 4, Article number: e004339en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/24628
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_GB
dc.rightsThis is the final version of an Open Access article also available from BMJ via the DOI in this record. Distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/en_GB
dc.subjectMedical Education & Trainingen_GB
dc.subjectStatistics & Research Methodsen_GB
dc.subjectClinical Competenceen_GB
dc.subjectCommunicationen_GB
dc.subjectGeneral Practiceen_GB
dc.subjectGeneral Practitionersen_GB
dc.subjectGreat Britainen_GB
dc.subjectHumansen_GB
dc.subjectInterviews as Topicen_GB
dc.subjectLinear Modelsen_GB
dc.subjectObserver Variationen_GB
dc.subjectPhysician-Patient Relationsen_GB
dc.subjectPractice Patterns, Physicians'en_GB
dc.subjectPrimary Health Careen_GB
dc.subjectQuality of Health Careen_GB
dc.subjectReferral and Consultationen_GB
dc.subjectReproducibility of Resultsen_GB
dc.subjectVideo Recordingen_GB
dc.titleAssessing 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.en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2016-11-29T10:31:01Z
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.identifier.journalBMJ Openen_GB
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC3948635
dc.identifier.pmid24604483


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record