Display options
Cite
Burt J, Abel G, Elmore N, et al. Assessing 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. BMJ Open. 2014;4(3):e004339doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339.
Burt, J., Abel, G., Elmore, N., Campbell, J., Roland, M., Benson, J., & Silverman, J. (2014). Assessing 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. BMJ open, 4(3), e004339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339
Burt, Jenni, et al. "Assessing 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." BMJ open vol. 4,3 (2014): e004339. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339
Burt J, Abel G, Elmore N, Campbell J, Roland M, Benson J, Silverman J. Assessing 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. BMJ Open. 2014 Mar 06;4(3):e004339. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339. PMID: 24604483; PMCID: PMC3948635.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMJ Open. 2014 Mar 06;4(3):e004339. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339.

Assessing 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.

BMJ open

Jenni Burt, Gary Abel, Natasha Elmore, John Campbell, Martin Roland, John Benson, Jonathan Silverman

Affiliations

  1. Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

PMID: 24604483 PMCID: PMC3948635 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004339

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: 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.

Keywords: Medical Education & Training; Statistics & Research Methods

References

  1. Med Educ. 2008 Nov;42(11):1100-7 - PubMed
  2. Psychol Rev. 2003 Jul;110(3):472-89 - PubMed
  3. Patient Educ Couns. 2003 May;50(1):79-84 - PubMed
  4. Patient Educ Couns. 2011 Jan;82(1):89-93 - PubMed
  5. CMAJ. 1992 Oct 15;147(8):1149-52 - PubMed
  6. Cancer Prev Control. 1999 Feb;3(1):25-30 - PubMed
  7. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Aug;18(8):677-8 - PubMed
  8. Teach Learn Med. 2003 Fall;15(4):270-92 - PubMed
  9. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Dec;13(5):617-32 - PubMed
  10. Br J Gen Pract. 1991 Mar;41(344):97-9 - PubMed
  11. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Jul;62(1):38-45 - PubMed
  12. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010 Dec;24(6):703-19 - PubMed
  13. J Cancer Educ. 1993 Summer;8(2):109-17 - PubMed
  14. Patient Educ Couns. 1998 Nov;35(3):161-76 - PubMed
  15. BMJ. 1991 Nov 30;303(6814):1385-7 - PubMed
  16. Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):802-9 - PubMed
  17. Med Educ. 2002 Oct;36(10):901-9 - PubMed
  18. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Oct;15(5):407-12 - PubMed
  19. Med Teach. 2009 Apr;31(4):328-31 - PubMed
  20. J Vet Med Educ. 2006 Spring;33(1):38-44 - PubMed
  21. Fam Med. 2005 Mar;37(3):184-92 - PubMed
  22. Arch Dis Child. 2010 May;95(5):323-9 - PubMed
  23. Med Educ. 1996 Mar;30(2):83-9 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support