A practical assessment of physician biopsychosocial performance

Measurement of person-centred consultation skills among healthcare practitioners: a systematic review of reviews of validation studies

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care is integral to high-quality health service provision, though concepts vary and the literature is complex. Validated instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills, and behaviours within consultations, are needed for many reasons, including in training programmes. We aimed to provide a high-level synthesis of what was expected to be a large and diverse literature through a systematic review of existing reviews of validation studies a of instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills and behaviours in consultations. The objectives were to undertake a critical appraisal of these reviews, and to summarise the available validated instruments and the evidence underpinning them.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL was conducted in September 2020. Systematic reviews of validation studies of instruments measuring individual practitioner person-centred consultation skills or behaviours which report measurement properties were included. Review quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Details of the reviews, the included validation studies, and the instruments themselves are tabulated, including psychometric data, and a narrative overview of the reviews is provided.

RESULTS

Four reviews were eligible for inclusion. These used different conceptualisations of person-centredness and targeted distinct, sometimes mutually exclusive, practitioners and settings. The four reviews included 68 unique validation studies examining 42 instruments, but with very few overlaps. The critical appraisal shows there is a need for improvements in the design of reviews in this area. The instruments included within these reviews have not been subject to extensive validation study.

DISCUSSION

There are many instruments available which measure person-centred skills in healthcare practitioners and this study offers a guide to what is available to researchers and research users. The most relevant and promising instruments that have already been developed, or items within them, should be further studied rigorously. Validation study of existing material is needed, not the development of new measures.

Analysis of Real-World Implementation of the Biopsychosocial Approach to Healthcare: Evidence From a Combination of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Aims: The modern medical model has been transformed into a biopsychosocial model. The integration of the biopsychosocial approach in healthcare can help improve the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment. This study explored the actual application of the biopsychosocial approach in healthcare and provides a basis for targeted interventions to promote the biopsychosocial approach in healthcare. Methods: Study 1 involved one-on-one interviews with 30 medical staff and focus group interviews with 16 recent patients. Study 2 was a cross-sectional survey of 13,105 medical staff in Hangzhou, China that analyzed the status quo implementation of the biopsychosocial approach in healthcare. Results: Study 1 found that medical staff did not welcome patients to report information unrelated to their disease, hoping patients did not express their emotions. In the treatment process, patients believed that medical staff refused to attend to or did not encourage reporting of any information other than the disease, and that patients should have reasonable expectations for medical staff. Study 2 found that medical staff had a 37.5% probability of actively paying attention to the patient's psychosocial status. Female medical staff (38.5%) were actively concerned about the patient's psychosocial status significantly more than male medical staff (34.2%) (P < 0.01). The medical staff in the psychiatric department (58.4%) paid more active attention to the patient's psychosocial status than staff in the non-psychiatric departments (37.2%). Gender, department, hospital level, and professional title were the factors associated with the medical staff's attention to the patient's psychosocial status (P < 0.05). The influence of age on the probability of medical staff actively paying attention to the psychosocial status of patients increased with the number of years of employment. Participants that were 31-40 years old, had an intermediate professional title, and 11-15 years of employment were the least likely to actively pay attention to patients' psychosocial status. Conclusion: Although the biopsychosocial approach has been popularized for many years, it has not been widely used in medical care. Medical staff pay more attention to patients' physical symptoms and less attention to patients' psychosocial status. It is recommended that training will be provided to medical personnel on implementing a biopsychosocial approach with particular attention to the sociodemographic characteristics of medical personnel. Additionally, we propose helping patients set reasonable expectations, and formulating guidelines for implementing the biopsychosocial approach.

Definition of whole person care in general practice in the English language literature: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The importance of 'whole person' or 'holistic' care is widely recognised, particularly with an increasing prevalence of chronic multimorbidity internationally. This approach to care is a defining feature of general practice. However, its precise meaning remains ambiguous. We aimed to determine how the term 'whole person' care is understood by general practitioners (GPs), and whether it is synonymous with '[w]holistic' and 'biopsychosocial' care.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, Science.gov (Health and Medicine database), Google Scholar and included studies' reference lists were searched with an unlimited date range. Systematic or literature reviews, original research, theoretical articles or books/book chapters; specific to general practice; relevant to the research question; and published in English were included. Included literature was critically appraised, and data were extracted and analysed using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Fifty publications were included from 4297 non-duplicate records retrieved. Six themes were identified: a multidimensional, integrated approach; the importance of the therapeutic relationship; acknowledging doctors' humanity; recognising patients' individual personhood; viewing health as more than absence of disease; and employing a range of treatment modalities. Whole person, biopsychosocial and holistic terminology were often used interchangeably, but were not synonymous.

CONCLUSIONS

Whole person, holistic and biopsychosocial terminology are primarily characterised by a multidimensional approach to care and incorporate additional elements described above. Whole person care probably represents the closest representation of the basis for general practice. Health systems aiming to provide whole person care need to address the challenge of integrating the care of other health professionals, and maintaining the patient-doctor relationship central to the themes identified. Further research is required to clarify the representativeness of the findings, and the relative importance GPs' assign to each theme.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017058824.

Assessing patient-centred communication in teaching: a systematic review of instruments

CONTEXT

Patient-centred communication is a key component of patient centredness in medical care. Therefore, adequate education in and assessment of patient-centred communication skills are necessary. In general, feedback on communication skills is most effective when it is provided directly and is systematic. This calls for adequate measurement instruments.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review of existing instruments that measure patient centredness in doctor-patient communication and can be used to provide direct feedback.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using an extensive validated search strategy for measurement instruments in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The databases were searched from their inception to 1 July 2016. Articles describing the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of instruments that measure patient centredness (by applying three or more of the six dimensions of a published definition of patient centredness) in doctor-patient communication and that can be used for the provision of direct feedback were included. The methodological quality of measurement properties was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles describing 14 instruments measuring patient centredness in doctor-patient communication were identified. These studies cover a wide range of settings and patient populations, and vary in the dimensions of patient centredness applied and in methodological quality on aspects of reliability and validity.

CONCLUSIONS

This review gives a comprehensive overview of all instruments available for the measurement of patient centredness in doctor-patient communication that can be used for the provision of direct feedback and are described in the literature. Despite the widely felt need for valid and reliable instruments for the measurement of patient-centred communication, most of the instruments currently available have not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, we recommend further research into and enhancement of existing instruments in terms of validity and reliability, along with enhancement of their generalisability, responsiveness and aspects of interpretability in different contexts (real patients, simulated patients, doctors in different specialties, etc.). Comprehensibility and feasibility should also be taken into account.

Perspective: biomedicine--menace or straw man? Reexamining the biopsychosocial argument

More than 30 years after its introduction by George Engel, the biopsychosocial model exerts a major influence on the rhetoric and intentions of academic medicine. However, advocates of the model do not feel that it has significantly altered the practice of physicians, whom they portray as tightly clinging to a biomedical approach. Using Engel's original writings, those of his successors, and the work of medical historians, the author asserts that biopsychosocial advocates use clinical biomedicine as a straw man to support their argument. Proceeding from that point, the author attempts to demonstrate that excessive focus on this straw man has inhibited critique of the biopsychosocial model and the argument supporting it. He identifies failures to address clinical medicine's functional specificity and relationship with broader social trends as contributors to the biopsychosocial model's stagnation. The author proposes that it would be more productive to view clinical biomedicine as an epiphenomenon of the human traits of overenthusiasm and the need for security. Recognizing that medicine is made up of heterogeneous tasks, he observes that no one model, including the biopsychosocial model, tends to all of them. The biopsychosocial model would be best served by shedding the biomedical straw man and modifying its ambitions.