TY - CHAP
T1 - Re: Does patient feedback improve the consultation skills of general practice trainees?
AU - Paulis, Winifred
AU - Beekman-Evers, Monique S.
AU - Van Der Wouden, Johannes C.
PY - 2010/8
Y1 - 2010/8
N2 - Comments on an article by M. E. Reinders et al. (see record 2010-00962-008) and A. W. Kramer et al. (see record 2004-11091-005). Reinders et al. reported on their intriguing controlled trial that assessed whether a patient feedback training programme improved the consultation skills of general practice trainees (GPTs). Their results showed that both the intervention and control groups improved their consultation skills. However, there were no significant differences between the groups. The first argument the authors gave for this finding referred to the baseline score of the cohort on the MAAS-Global Instrument, which, at 3.29, was high compared with that of a similar cohort reported by Kramer et al., which scored only 2.2. High baseline scores are difficult to improve and therefore the influence of patient feedback may be lost in the overall process. We wonder whether both groups improved their scores because of the standard consultation training both groups received. It may be that the observers of the videotaped consultations knew which videos referred to baseline and which to follow-up consultations and were therefore biased. Reinders et al. did not explain why their cohort scored much higher than that of Kramer et al. A second explanation may be that the observers of the videos in Reinders et al. knew the GPTs and gave therefore friendlier grades. Kramer et al. reported that their observers did not know the trainees. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
AB - Comments on an article by M. E. Reinders et al. (see record 2010-00962-008) and A. W. Kramer et al. (see record 2004-11091-005). Reinders et al. reported on their intriguing controlled trial that assessed whether a patient feedback training programme improved the consultation skills of general practice trainees (GPTs). Their results showed that both the intervention and control groups improved their consultation skills. However, there were no significant differences between the groups. The first argument the authors gave for this finding referred to the baseline score of the cohort on the MAAS-Global Instrument, which, at 3.29, was high compared with that of a similar cohort reported by Kramer et al., which scored only 2.2. High baseline scores are difficult to improve and therefore the influence of patient feedback may be lost in the overall process. We wonder whether both groups improved their scores because of the standard consultation training both groups received. It may be that the observers of the videotaped consultations knew which videos referred to baseline and which to follow-up consultations and were therefore biased. Reinders et al. did not explain why their cohort scored much higher than that of Kramer et al. A second explanation may be that the observers of the videos in Reinders et al. knew the GPTs and gave therefore friendlier grades. Kramer et al. reported that their observers did not know the trainees. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03717.x
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03717.x
M3 - Chapter
C2 - 20633224
SN - 0308-0110
T3 - Medical Education
SP - 845
BT - Medical Education
ER -