• J Surg Educ · Jan 2013

    Evaluation of an interprofessional clinician-patient communication workshop utilizing standardized patient methodology.

    • Casey Lagan, Hania Wehbe-Janek, Kim Waldo, Amy Fox, Chanhee Jo, and Mark Rahm.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scott and White Healthcare, Temple, Texas 76508, USA.
    • J Surg Educ. 2013 Jan 1;70(1):95-103.

    ObjectiveCommunication and interpersonal skills (CIS) are one of the 6 general competencies required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). The clinician-patient communication (CPC) workshop, developed by the Institute for Healthcare Communication, provides an interactive opportunity to practice and develop CIS. The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the impact of a CPC workshop on orthopedic surgery residents' CIS (2) determine the impact of physician alone or incorporation of nursing participation in the workshop, and (3) incorporate standardized patients (SPs) in resident training and assessment of CIS.MethodsStratified by training year, 18 residents of an Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Program were randomized to a CPC workshop with only residents (group A, n = 9) or a CPC workshop with nurse participants (group B, n = 9). Data included residents' (1) CIS scores as evaluated by SPs and (2) self-reports from a 25-question survey on perception of CIS. Data were collected at baseline and 3 weeks following the workshop.ResultsFollowing the workshop, the combined group (group A and B) felt more strongly that the ACGME should require a communication training and evaluation curriculum (post mean = 52.7, post-pre difference = 15.94, p = 0.026). Group A residents felt more strongly that communication is a learned behavior (post mean = 82.7, post-pre difference = 17.67, p = 0.028), and the addition of SPs was a valuable experience (post mean = 59.3, post-pre difference = 16.44, p = 0.038). Group B residents reported less willingness to improve on their communication skills (post-mean = 79.7, post-pre difference = -7.44, p = 0.049) and less improvement in professional satisfaction in effective communication than group A (post mean group A = 81.9, group B = 83.6, post-pre difference group A = 7.11, group B = 1.89, p = 0.047). Few differences between groups regarding CIS scores were detected.ConclusionsWhile there was no demonstrable difference regarding CIS, our study indicates that participants valued the importance of communication training and found SPs to be a valuable addition. The addition of interprofessional participation appeared to detract from the experience. Further study is warranted to elucidate the variables associated with interprofessional education within the context of CIS training and assessment using SPs in residency.Copyright © 2012 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.