让患者参与并通过全科医学研究生考试:使用经过验证的工具在咨询技能考试中调查共同决策。

Involve the patient and pass the MRCGP: investigating shared decision making in a consulting skills examination using a validated instrument.

作者信息

Siriwardena A Niroshan, Edwards Adrian Gk, Campion Peter, Freeman Adrian, Elwyn Glyn

机构信息

University of Lincoln, Lincoln.

出版信息

Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Nov;56(532):857-62.

DOI:
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making is an important aspect of patient centredness. Lack of this consulting behaviour is a common reason for failure in the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners (MRCGP) consulting skills examination.

AIM

To investigate candidates' performance in shared decision making and overall performance in the MRCGP consulting skills assessment compared with an independently validated measure, the OPTION ('observing patient involvement') scale.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

MRCGP examination, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred and fifty-two consultations submitted by 36 GPs submitting seven consultations per videotape.

METHOD

A stratified sample of 63 candidates, 21 each from fail, pass and merit selected from candidates in the MRCGP consulting skills examination, were approached for participation. Participants' examination videotapes were independently assessed for shared decision making using the OPTION scale by two non-clinical raters.

RESULTS

Thirty-six candidates (of 63; 57%) who participated were no different from non-participants. Candidates who passed the 'sharing management options' in the MRCGP had significantly higher OPTION scores than those who did not (35.4 versus 27.3; mean difference = 8.1, P = 0.044). There was a significant difference between OPTION scores of MRCGP candidates with 'fail' and 'pass' (including pass with merit): 28.6 versus 36.1, 95% confidence interval CI = 1.13 to 13.87. Scores decreased as clinician age increased but were not significantly associated with sex of GP, age or sex of patient or consultation duration. The probability of passing the MRGCP increased as OPTION scores increased.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated concurrent validity of the MRCGP consulting skills assessment of sharing management options against an independent validated instrument for shared decision making, the OPTION scale. Candidates who performed best in the MRCGP exhibited high scores with OPTION. This study provides the basis for further work to demonstrate evidence for the potential of training for professional assessment to improve consulting competence.

摘要

背景

共同决策是患者为中心理念的一个重要方面。缺乏这种咨询行为是全科医师皇家学院会员资格(MRCGP)咨询技能考试失败的常见原因。

目的

与经独立验证的测量工具OPTION(“观察患者参与度”)量表相比,调查MRCGP咨询技能评估中考生在共同决策方面的表现及总体表现。

设计

横断面研究。

地点

英国MRCGP考试。

参与者

36名全科医生提交的252次会诊,每位全科医生每个录像带提交7次会诊。

方法

从MRCGP咨询技能考试的考生中选取63名考生作为分层样本,其中失败、通过和优秀的各21名,邀请他们参与。两名非临床评分者使用OPTION量表对参与者的考试录像带进行共同决策方面的独立评估。

结果

参与的63名考生中有36名(57%)与未参与者没有差异。在MRCGP中通过“共享管理选项”的考生的OPTION得分显著高于未通过者(35.4对27.3;平均差异 = 8.1,P = 0.044)。MRCGP考试中“失败”和“通过”(包括优秀通过)的考生的OPTION得分存在显著差异:28.6对36.1,95%置信区间CI = 1.13至13.87。分数随着临床医生年龄的增加而降低,但与全科医生的性别、患者的年龄或性别以及会诊时长无显著关联。随着OPTION得分的增加,通过MRGCP的概率也增加。

结论

本研究证明了MRCGP咨询技能评估中共享管理选项与经独立验证的共同决策工具OPTION量表具有同时效度。在MRCGP中表现最佳的考生在OPTION量表上得分很高。本研究为进一步开展工作提供了基础,以证明专业评估培训对提高咨询能力的潜力的证据。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索