Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Jul;16(4):330-337.
doi: 10.1370/afm.2241.

The Evaluation of Physicians' Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives

Jenni Burt  1 , Gary Abel  2 , Marc N Elliott  3 , Natasha Elmore  4 , Jennifer Newbould  5 , Antoinette Davey  2 , Nadia Llanwarne  6 , Inocencio Maramba  2 , Charlotte Paddison  6 , John Campbell  2 , Martin Roland  6
Affiliations
Comparative Study

The Evaluation of Physicians' Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives

Jenni Burt et al. Ann Fam Med. 2018 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: To examine how family physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of physician-patient communication compare by analysis of individual appointments.

Methods: Analysis of survey data from patients attending face-to-face appointments with 45 family physicians at 13 practices in England. Immediately post-appointment, patients and physicians independently completed a questionnaire including 7 items assessing communication quality. A sample of videotaped appointments was assessed by trained clinical raters, using the same 7 communication items. Patient, physician, and rater communication scores were compared using correlation coefficients.

Results: Included were 503 physician-patient pairs; of those, 55 appointments were also evaluated by trained clinical raters. Physicians scored themselves, on average, lower than patients (mean physician score 74.5; mean patient score 94.4); 63.4% (319) of patient-reported scores were the maximum of 100. The mean of rater scores from 55 appointments was 57.3. There was a near-zero correlation coefficient between physician-reported and patient-reported communication scores (0.009, P = .854), and between physician-reported and trained rater-reported communication scores (-0.006, P = .69). There was a moderate and statistically significant association, however, between patient and trained-rater scores (0.35, P = .042).

Conclusions: The lack of correlation between physician scores and those of others indicates that physicians' perceptions of good communication during their appointments may differ from those of external peer raters and patients. Physicians may not be aware of how patients experience their communication practices; peer assessment of communication skills is an important approach in identifying areas for improvement.

Keywords: health care quality measurement; health care surveys; patient experience; patient satisfaction; physician-patient communication; physician-patient relations; quality of health care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of scores for the full sample. Full sample (n = 503)
Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of scores for the full sample. Full sample (n = 503)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatterplot illustrating the association between physician and patient scores.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of scores for the subsample. Subsample rated by trained raters (n = 55)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of scores for the subsample. Subsample rated by trained raters (n = 55)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution of scores for the subsample. Subsample rated by trained raters (n = 55)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Scatterplots illustrating associations between physician, patient, and rater scores. Note: The gray lines are lines of best fit.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Scatterplots illustrating associations between physician, patient, and rater scores. Note: The gray lines are lines of best fit.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Scatterplots illustrating associations between physician, patient, and rater scores. Note: The gray lines are lines of best fit.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Buetow SA. What do general practitioners and their patients want from general practice and are they receiving it? A framework. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 40(2): 213–221. - PubMed
    1. Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, Olesen F, Grol R. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med. 1998; 47(10): 1573–1588. - PubMed
    1. Anhang Price R, Elliott MN, Zaslavsky AM. Valuing patient experience as a unique and intrinsically important aspect of health care quality. JAMA Surg. 2013; 148(10): 985–986. - PubMed
    1. Anhang Price R, Elliott MN, Zaslavsky AM, et al. Examining the role of patient experience surveys in measuring health care quality. Med Care Res Rev. 2014; 71(5): 522–554. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995; 152(9): 1423–1433. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types