Evaluation of an occupational medicine patient consultation note assessment tool.

V Spilchuk, R House, R Nisenbaum, D L Holness
{"title":"Evaluation of an occupational medicine patient consultation note assessment tool.","authors":"V Spilchuk,&nbsp;R House,&nbsp;R Nisenbaum,&nbsp;D L Holness","doi":"10.1093/occmed/kqab154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical education focuses on assessment, diagnosis and management of various clinical entities. The communication of this information, particularly in the written form, is rarely emphasized. Though there have been assessment tools developed to support medical learner improvement in this regard, none are oriented to occupational medicine (OM) practice.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study was aimed to develop and evaluate an assessment tool for consultation letters, by modifying a previously validated assessment tool to suit practice in OM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using an iterative process, OM specialists added to the Consultation Letter Rating Scale (CLRS) of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (henceforth abbreviated as RC) additional questions relevant to communication in the OM context. The tool was then used by two OM specialists to rate 40 anonymized OM clinical consultation letters. Inter-rater agreement was measured by percent agreement, kappa statistic and intraclass correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was generally good percent agreement (>80% for the majority of the RC and OM questions). Intraclass correlation for the five OM questions total scores was slightly higher than the intraclass correlations for the five RC questions (0.59 versus 0.46, respectively), suggesting that our modifications performed at least as well as the original tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This new tool designed specifically for evaluation of patient consultation notes in OM provides a good option for medical educators in a variety of practice areas in providing non-summative, low-stakes assessment and/or feedback to nurture increased competency in written communication skills for postgraduate trainees in OM.</p>","PeriodicalId":520727,"journal":{"name":"Occupational medicine (Oxford, England)","volume":" ","pages":"99-104"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Occupational medicine (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Medical education focuses on assessment, diagnosis and management of various clinical entities. The communication of this information, particularly in the written form, is rarely emphasized. Though there have been assessment tools developed to support medical learner improvement in this regard, none are oriented to occupational medicine (OM) practice.

Aims: This study was aimed to develop and evaluate an assessment tool for consultation letters, by modifying a previously validated assessment tool to suit practice in OM.

Methods: Using an iterative process, OM specialists added to the Consultation Letter Rating Scale (CLRS) of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (henceforth abbreviated as RC) additional questions relevant to communication in the OM context. The tool was then used by two OM specialists to rate 40 anonymized OM clinical consultation letters. Inter-rater agreement was measured by percent agreement, kappa statistic and intraclass correlation.

Results: There was generally good percent agreement (>80% for the majority of the RC and OM questions). Intraclass correlation for the five OM questions total scores was slightly higher than the intraclass correlations for the five RC questions (0.59 versus 0.46, respectively), suggesting that our modifications performed at least as well as the original tool.

Conclusions: This new tool designed specifically for evaluation of patient consultation notes in OM provides a good option for medical educators in a variety of practice areas in providing non-summative, low-stakes assessment and/or feedback to nurture increased competency in written communication skills for postgraduate trainees in OM.

职业医学患者会诊记录评估工具的评价。
背景:医学教育侧重于各种临床实体的评估、诊断和管理。这种信息的交流,特别是以书面形式的交流,很少得到强调。虽然已经开发了一些评估工具来支持医学学习者在这方面的改进,但没有一个是面向职业医学(OM)实践的。目的:本研究旨在通过修改先前验证的评估工具以适应OM的实践,开发和评估咨询信的评估工具。方法:使用迭代过程,OM专家在加拿大皇家内科医生和外科医生学院(以下简称RC)的咨询信评级量表(CLRS)中添加了与OM背景下沟通相关的附加问题。然后,两位OM专家使用该工具对40封匿名OM临床咨询信进行评分。通过一致性百分比、kappa统计量和类内相关性来衡量等级间的一致性。结果:总体上有很好的一致性(大多数RC和OM问题>80%)。5个OM问题总分的类内相关性略高于5个RC问题的类内相关性(分别为0.59和0.46),这表明我们的修改至少与原始工具一样好。结论:这一新工具专为评估OM的患者咨询记录而设计,为各种实践领域的医学教育者提供了一个很好的选择,它提供了非总结性、低风险的评估和/或反馈,以培养OM研究生学员提高书面沟通技巧的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信