How clinician examiners compare with simulated patients in assessing medical student empathy in a clinical exam setting

CARECOS study: Medical students' empathy as assessed with the CARE measure by examiners versus standardized patients during a formative Objective and Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station

PURPOSE

To assess the Consultation And Relational Empathy (CARE) measure as a tool for examiners to assess medical students' empathy during Objective and Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), as the best tool for assessing empathy during OSCEs remains unknown.

METHODS

We first assessed the psychometric properties of the CARE measure, completed simultaneously by examiners and standardized patients (SP, either teachers - SPteacher - or civil society members - SPcivil society), for each student, at the end of an OSCE station. We then assessed the qualitative/quantitative agreement between examiners and SP.

RESULTS

We included 129 students, distributed in eight groups, four groups for each SP type. The CARE measure showed satisfactory psychometric properties in the context of the study but moderate, and even poor inter-rater reliability for some items. Considering paired observations, examiners scored lower than SPs (p < 0.001) regardless of the SP type. However, the difference in score was greater when the SP was a SPteacher rather than a SPcivil society (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Despite acceptable psychometric properties, inter-rater reliability of the CARE measure between examiners and SP was unsatisfactory. The choice of examiner as well as the type of SP seems critical to ensure a fair measure of empathy during OSCEs.

A Multifaceted Educational Intervention in the Doctor-Patient Relationship for Medical Students to Incorporate Patient Agendas in Simulated Encounters

From the beginning of their clinical training, medical students demonstrate difficulties when incorporating patient perspectives. This study aimed to assess if students, after an instructional programme, increased their sensitivity towards patients' needs and carried out bidirectional conversations. An observational study involving 109 medical students prior to their clerkships was designed. They attended a five-step training programme designed to encourage the use of communication skills (CSs) to obtain patients' perspectives. The course developed experiential and reflective educational strategies. The students improved their use of CSs throughout three sessions, and the overall score for these patient consultations went up in the opinions of both the external observer (EO) (5; 6.6; 7.5) and the simulated patients SPs (5.3; 6.6; 7.8). Most of the students (83.9%) considered that the CSs addressed were useful for clinical practice, particularly the interviews and the feedback received by the SP and the lecturer. The programme seems to help the students use CSs that facilitate a more bidirectional conversation in a simulated learning environment. It is feasible to integrate these skills into a broader training programme. More research is needed to assess whether the results are applicable to students in real settings and whether they influence additional outcomes.

An Exploratory Mixed Methods Study of Standardized Patient Comments on Empathy and Student Communication Scores

Objective. To quantify student pharmacists' communication ability based on scores from standardized patient (SP) communication rubrics, describe and categorize SP comments about student empathy, and test the relationship between students' communication scores and empathy.Methods. A concurrent mixed methods research design was used to assess a graded performance-based assessment (PBA) of student pharmacists that had been conducted at one college of pharmacy. The PBA rubrics (n=218) completed by SPs contained 20 assessment items and space for open-ended feedback. Scoring categories for communication assessment included: yes, inconsistent, no, and not applicable (N/A). Descriptive statistics were calculated for rubric scores. Feedback from standardized patients was analyzed and used to categorize student interactions during the encounter as reflecting high empathy, mixed empathy, or low empathy. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used to test the relationship between empathy category and communication score.Results. Standardized patients had written comments on 141 of the 218 rubrics (64.7%). The mean communication score was 39.0±1.6 (range, 31-40) out of a maximum 40 points. The total scores for the low, mixed, and high empathy category transformations were 6 (4.3%), 95 (67.4%), and 40 (28.4%), respectively. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA were significant, suggesting that communication scores were different between empathy categories.Conclusion. There was a positive association between students' scores on communication rubrics and student empathy categorization, with student pharmacists exhibiting different levels of clinical empathy. While the PBA of interest was not specifically focused on empathy, SPs frequently provided feedback about empathy to students, suggesting that showing empathy during the encounter was important.

Perspective matters: assessment of medical students' communication and interpersonal skills by simulated patients from the internal and external patient perspective

Background: Communication and interpersonals skills are important qualities of professionalism in medicine. In medical curricula, they are usually acquired in communication trainings and assessed in OSCEs. Studies show correlations as well as differences between communication ratings of examiners and simulated patients. In our study, simulated patients assessed medical students' communication and interpersonal skills after a consultation hour from the internal and the external patient perspective. Methods: In December 2019, 52 final-year medical students participated in a consultation hour as part of a simulated first day of residency assessment. They were assessed twice with a questionnaire for communication and interpersonal skills (ComCare) by the simulated patients: directly after each consultation from the internal perspective of the patient's view (internal perspective) and four month later from the 208 consultation videos from an external perspective of the patient's view (external perspective). All eight ComCare items were assessed on a five-point Likert scale (1=full disagreement to 5=full agreement). Differences between the item means of internal and external perspective were examined by paired t-tests. Results: Overall, significantly higher ratings were found for all ComCare items from the external perspective except for the item "Interest". Ratings for the items "Language" and "Listening" were significantly higher from the external perspective for all simulated patients. Significantly higher ratings for all items from the external perspective were observed for two simulated patients. Conclusion: Simulated patients' ratings after a conversation seem to represent a more authentic view on students' communication and interpersonal skills because of the emotionally experienced situation. The evaluation of those skills from a simulated patient perspective could be a valuable complement to communication ratings by examiners.