Rating general practitioner consultation performance in cancer care: does the specialty of assessors matter? A simulated patient study
MetadataShow full item record
This article is published under the Open Access publishing model and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Please refer to the licence to obtain terms for any further reuse or distribution of this work.
BackgroundPatients treated for prostate cancer may present to general practitioners (GPs) for treatment follow up, but may be reticent to have their consultations recorded. Therefore the use of simulated patients allows practitioner consultations to be rated. The aim of this study was to determine whether the speciality of the assessor has an impact on how GP consultation performance is rated. MethodsSix pairs of scenarios were developed for professional actors in two series of consultations by GPs. The scenarios included: chronic radiation proctitis, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) ‘bounce’, recurrence of cancer, urethral stricture, erectile dysfunction and depression or anxiety. Participating GPs were furnished with the patient’s past medical history, current medication, prostate cancer details and treatment, details of physical examinations. Consultations were video recorded and assessed for quality by two sets of assessors- a team of two GPs and two Radiation Oncologists deploying the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP). LAP scores by the GPs and Radiation Oncologists were compared. ResultsEight GPs participated. In Series 1 the range of LAP scores by GP assessors was 61%-80%, and 67%-86% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. The range for GP LAP scores in Series 2 was 51%- 82%, and 56%-89% for Radiation Oncologist assessors. Within GP assessor correlations for LAP scores were 0.31 and 0.87 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Within Radiation Oncologist assessor correlations were 0.50 and 0.72 in Series 1 and 2 respectively. Radiation Oncologist and GP assessor scores were significantly different for 4 doctors and for some scenarios. Anticipatory care was the only domain where GPs scored participants higher than Radiation Oncologist assessors. ConclusionThe assessment of GP consultation performance is not consistent across assessors from different disciplines even when they deploy the same assessment tool.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Management of cases that might benefit from radiotherapy: a standardised patient study in primary careHalkett, Georgia; Jiwa, Moyez; O'shea, C.; Smith, M.; Leong, E.; Jackson, M.; Meng, X.; Spry, Nigel (2012)The aim of this study was to assess general practitioner (GP) consultations with standardised patients presenting with cancer-related problems that might benefit from radiotherapy. Standardised patient scenarios were ...
Psychosexual problems in general practice: measuring consultation competence using two different measuresJiwa, Moyez; O'shea, C.; Merriman, G.; Halkett, Georgia; Spilsbury, Katrina (2010)BACKGROUND: Psychosexual problems are a common presentation in general practice. Given that the cornerstone of assessment is excellent consultations skills, it may be assumed that general practitioners (GPs) will perform ...
Jiwa, Moyez; Mitchell, G.; Sibbrit, D.; Girgis, A.; Burridge, L. (2010)BACKGROUND: This study aimed to develop an innovation to assist general practitioners (GPs) in Australia to proactively address the needs of caregivers of people with cancer. METHOD: Six GPs were video recorded each ...