Assessing Communication Skills in Real Medical Encounters in Oncology: Development and Validation of the ComOn-Coaching Rating Scales
- 187 Downloads
One of the challenges in research on teaching physician-patient communication is how to assess communication, necessary for evaluating training, the learning process, and for feedback. Few instruments have been validated for real physician-patient consultations. Real consultations involve unique contexts, different persons, and topics, and are difficult to compare. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a rating scale for assessment of such consultations. For the evaluation study of a communication skills training for physicians in oncology, real consultations were recorded in three assessment points. Based on earlier work and on current studies, a new instrument was developed for assessment of these consultations. Two psychologists were trained in using the instrument and assessed 42 consultations. For inter-rater reliability, interclass correlation (ICC) was calculated. The final version of the rating scales consists of 13 items evaluated on a 5-point scale. The items are grouped in seven areas: “Start of conversation,” “assessment of the patient’s perspective,” “structure of conversation,” “emotional issues,” “end of conversation,” “general communication skills,” and “overall evaluation.” ICC coefficients for the domains ranged from .44 to .77. An overall coefficient of all items resulted in an ICC of .66. The ComOn-Coaching Rating Scales are a short, reliable, and applicable instrument for the assessment of real physician-patient consultations in oncology. If adapted, they could be used in other areas. They were developed for research and teaching purposes and meet the required methodological criteria. Rater training should be considered more deeply by further research.
KeywordsClinical competence Communication Communication assessment Data accuracy Medical oncology/education Physician-patient relations
The ComOn-Coaching Project was made possible by the financial support of the German Cancer Aid. The article processing charge was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the University of Freiburg in the funding program Open Access Publishing. We thank Angela Vöhringer and Christopher Koppermann for the rating work and all physicians and patients for making this project possible.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The study was fully approved by the ethics committees of the Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, and of the University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany, and is registered under DRKS00004385 in the DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register). The corresponding author (Marcelo Niglio de Figueiredo) has full control of all primary data and agrees to allow the journal to review the data if requested.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Bensing JM, Deveugele M, Moretti F, Fletcher I, van Vliet L, Van Bogaert M, Rimondini M (2011) How to make the medical consultation more successful from a patient’s perspective? Tips for doctors and patients from lay people in the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Patient Educ Couns 84:287–293. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.06.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Epstein RM, Street RL (2007) Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. NIH Publication No. 07-6225. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda Online: https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pcc/pcc_monograph.pdf Google Scholar
- 10.Goelz T, Wuensch A, Stubenrauch S, Ihorst G, de Figueiredo M, Bertz H, Wirsching M, Fritzsche K (2011) Specific training program improves oncologists’ palliative care communication skills in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 29:3402–3407. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6372 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Wuensch A, Goelz T, Ihorst G, Terris DD, Bertz H, Juergen Bengel J, Wirsching M, Fritzsche K (2017) Effect of individualized communication skills training on physicians’ discussion of clinical trials in oncology: results from a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 17:264. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3238-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Stubenrauch S, Schneid E-M, Wünsch A, Helmes A, Bertz H, Fritzsche K, Wirsching M, Gölz T (2012) Development and evaluation of a checklist assessing communication skills of oncologists: the COM-ON-Checklist. J Eval Clin Pract 18:225–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01556.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.de Figueiredo N, Marcelo BR, Bylund CL, Goelz T, Heußner P, Sattel H, Fritzsche K, Wuensch A (2015) ComOn Coaching: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of a varied number of coaching sessions on transfer into clinical practice following communication skills training. BMC Cancer 15:503. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1454-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Radziej, Katharina, Alexander Wuensch, Johanna Loechner, Cosima Engerer, Marcelo Niglio de Figueiredo, Johanna Freund, Heribert Sattel, Cadja Bachmann, Pascal O Berberat & Andreas Dinkel. In Review. How to assess communication skills? Development of the rating scale ComOn CheckGoogle Scholar
- 19.Wirtz M, Caspar F (2002) Beurteilungsübereinstimmungen und Beurteilerreliabilität. [Assessment Agreement and Rater Reliability] Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
- 22.Peterson EB, Calhoun AW, Rider EA (2014) The reliability of a modified Kalamazoo Consensus Statement Checklist for assessing the communication skills of multidisciplinary clinicians in the simulated environment. Patient Educ Couns 96:411–418. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.07.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar