Detecting the effects of physician training in self-care interviewing skills: Coding of standardized patient (SP) visit recordings versus SP post-visit ratings

Randomized controlled trial demonstrates novel tools to assess patient outcomes of Indigenous cultural safety training

BACKGROUND

Health care routinely fails Indigenous peoples and anti-Indigenous racism is common in clinical encounters. Clinical training programs aimed to enhance Indigenous cultural safety (ICS) rely on learner reported impact assessment even though clinician self-assessment is poorly correlated with observational or patient outcome reporting. We aimed to compare the clinical impacts of intensive and brief ICS training to control, and to assess the feasibility of ICS training evaluation tools, including unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) visits.

METHOD

Using a prospective parallel group three-arm randomized controlled trial design and masked standardized patients, we compared the clinical impacts of the intensive interactive, professionally facilitated, 8- to10-h Sanyas ICS training; a brief 1-h anti-bias training adapted to address anti-Indigenous bias; and control continuing medical education time-attention matched to the intensive training. Participants included 58 non-Indigenous staff physicians, resident physicians and nurse practitioners from family practice clinics, and one emergency department across four teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Main outcome measures were the quality of care provided during UISP visits including adjusted odds that clinician would be recommended by the UISP to a friend or family member; mean item scores on patient experience of care measure; and clinical practice guideline adherence for NSAID renewal and pain assessment.

RESULTS

Clinicians in the intensive or brief ICS groups had higher adjusted odds of being highly recommended to friends and family by standardized patients (OR 6.88, 95% CI 1.17 to 40.45 and OR 7.78, 95% CI 1.05 to 58.03, respectively). Adjusted mean item patient experience scores were 46% (95% CI 12% to 80%) and 40% (95% CI 2% to 78%) higher for clinicians enrolled in the intensive and brief training programs, respectively, compared to control. Small sample size precluded detection of training impacts on clinical practice guideline adherence; 100% of UISP visits were undetected by participating clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-oriented evaluation design and tools including UISPs were demonstrated as feasible and effective. Results show potential impact of cultural safety training on patient recommendation of clinician and improved patient experience. A larger trial to further ascertain impact on clinical practice is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.org NCT05890144. Retrospectively registered on June 5, 2023.

Assessing Physician's Motivational Communication Skills: 5-Step Mixed Methods Development Study of the Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test

BACKGROUND

Training physicians to provide effective behavior change counseling using approaches such as motivational communication (MC) is an important aspect of noncommunicable chronic disease prevention and management. However, existing evaluation tools for MC skills are complex, invasive, time consuming, and impractical for use within the medical context.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to develop and validate a short web-based tool for evaluating health care provider (HCP) skills in MC-the Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test (MC-CAT).

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2021, starting with a set of 11 previously identified core MC competencies and using a 5-step, mixed methods, integrated knowledge translation approach, the MC-CAT was created by developing a series of 4 base cases and a scoring scheme, validating the base cases and scoring scheme with international experts, creating 3 alternative versions of the 4 base cases (to create a bank of 16 cases, 4 of each type of base case) and translating the cases into French, integrating the cases into the web-based MC-CAT platform, and conducting initial internal validity assessments with university health students.

RESULTS

The MC-CAT assesses MC competency in 20 minutes by presenting HCPs with 4 out of a possible 16 cases (randomly selected and ordered) addressing various behavioral targets (eg, smoking, physical activity, diet, and medication adherence). Individual and global competency scores were calculated automatically for the 11 competency items across the 4 cases, providing automatic scores out of 100. From the factorial analysis of variance for the difference in competency and ranking scores, no significant differences were identified between the different case versions across individual and global competency (P=.26 to P=.97) and ranking scores (P=.24 to P=.89). The initial tests of internal consistency for rank order among the 24 student participants were in the acceptable range (α=.78).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that MC-CAT is an internally valid tool to facilitate the evaluation of MC competencies among HCPs and is ready to undergo comprehensive psychometric property analyses with a national sample of health care providers. Once psychometric property assessments have been completed, this tool is expected to facilitate the assessment of MC skills among HCPs, skills that will better support patients in adopting healthier lifestyles, which will significantly reduce the personal, social, and economic burdens of noncommunicable chronic diseases.

Evaluation of Communication Skills Among Physicians: A Systematic Review of Existing Assessment Tools

OBJECTIVE

The importance of physician training in communication skills for motivating patients to adopt a healthy life-style and optimize clinical outcomes is increasingly recognized. This study inventoried and systematically reviewed the psychometric properties of, and the skills assessed by, existing assessment tools used to evaluate communication skills among physicians.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42018091932). Four databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and SCOPUS) were searched up to December 2018, generating 3902 unique articles, which were screened by two authors. A total of 57 articles met the inclusion criteria and underwent full data extraction.

RESULTS

Forty-five different assessment tools were identified. Only 47% of the studies mentioned underlying theories or models for designing the tool. Fifteen communication skills were assessed across the tools, the five most prevalent were information giving (46%) or gathering (40%), eliciting patients' perspectives (44%), planning/goal setting (37%), and closing the session (32%). Most tools (93%) assessed communication skills using in-person role play exercises with standardized (61%) or real (32%) patients, but only 54% described the expertise of the raters who performed the evaluations. Overall, reporting of the psychometric properties of the assessment tools was poor-moderate (4.5 ± 1.3 out of 9).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying several existing physician communication assessment tools, a high degree of heterogeneity between these tools, in terms of skills assessed and study quality, was observed, and most have been poorly validated. Research is needed to rigorously develop and validate accessible, convenient, "user-friendly," and easy to administer and score communication assessment tools.