Advertisement
-
1
Blendon RJ, Benson JM, Hero JO: Public trust in physicians: U.S. medicine in international perspective. N Engl J Med 371: 1570, 2014.
-
2
Arnold L: Assessing professional behavior: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Acad Med 77: 502, 2002.
-
3
Ha JF, Longnecker N: Doctor-patient communication: a review. Ochsner J 10: 38, 2010.
-
4
Neumann M, Edelhauser F, Tauschel D, et al: Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents. Acad Med 86: 996, 2011.
-
5
Colliver JA, Swartz MH, Robbs RS, et al: Relationship between clinical competence and interpersonal and communication skills in standardized-patient assessment. Acad Med 74: 271, 1999.
-
6
Green M, Zick A, Thomas JX: Commentary: accurate medical student performance evaluations and professionalism assessment: “Yes, we can!” Acad Med 89: 1105, 2014.
-
7
Papadakis MS, Teherani A, Banach MA: Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Engl J Med 353: 2673, 2005.
-
8
Ferguson RP: Professionalism: hard to measure but you know it when you see it. J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect 2014, 4: 24226.
-
9
Bhugra D, Malik A: “Experts and Expertise,” in Professionalism in Mental Healthcare, p 1, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011.
-
10
Woollicroft JO, Howell JD, Patel BP, et al: Resident-patient interactions: the humanistic qualities of internal medicine residents assessed by patients, attending physicians, program supervisors and nurses. Acad Med 69: 216, 1994.
-
11
Boon K, Turner J: Ethical and professional conduct of medical students: review of current assessment measures and controversies. J Med Ethics 30: 221, 2004.
-
12
Boulet JR, Smee SM, Dillon GF, et al: The use of standardized patient assessments for certification and licensure decisions. Sim Healthcare 4: 35, 2009.
-
13
Zanetti M, Keller L, Mazor K, et al: using standardized patients to assess professionalism: a generalizability study. Teach Learn Med 22: 274, 2010.
-
14
Khan AS, Qureshi R, Acemoglu H, et al: Comparison of assessment scores of candidates for communication skills in an OSCE, by examiners, candidates and simulated patients. Creative Educ 3: 931, 2012.
-
15
Passiment M, Sacks H, Huang G: Medical simulation in medical education: results of an AAMC survey. Association of American Medical Colleges Web site. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/download/259760/data. Published September 2011. Accessed March 22, 2016.
-
16
Mahoney J, Vardaxis V, Anwar N, et al: Relationship between faculty and standardized patient assessment scores of podiatric medical students during a standardized performance assessment laboratory. JAPMA 106: 116, 2016.
-
17
Ginsburg S, McGaghie W: “Evaluation and Grading of Students,” in Guidebook for Clerkship Directors, 3rd Ed, edited by RME Fincher, p 133, Alliance for Clinical Education, Omaha, 2005.
-
18
Makoul G: Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: the Kalamazoo Consensus Statement. Acad Med 76: 390, 2001.
-
19
Schirmer JM, Mauksch L, Lang F, et al: Assessing communication competence: a review of current tools. Fam Med 37: 184, 2005.
-
20
Liew S, Dutta S, Sidhu JK, et al: Assessors for communication skills: SP's or healthcare professionals. Med Teach 35: 626, 2014.
-
21
Cooper C, Mira M: Who should assess medical students' communication skills: their academic teachers or their patients? Med Educ 32: 419, 1998.
-
22
Jah V, Bekker HL, Duffy SRG: A systematic review of studies assessing and facilitating attitudes towards professionalism in medicine. Med Educ 41: 822, 2007.
-
23
Epstein RM, Dannefer IF, Nofziger AC, et al: Comprehensive assessment of professional competence: the Rochester experiment. Teach Learn Med 16: 186, 2004.
-
24
Jonsson A, Svingby G: The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ Res Rev 2: 130, 2007.
-
25
Thorndike EL: A constant error in psychological ratings. J Appl Psychol 4: 25, 1920.
-
26
Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK et al: Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 73: 993, 1998.
-
27
Thistlethwaite J, Spencer J: “Assessing Professionalism,” in Professionalism in Medicine, p 200, Radcliffe Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 2008.
-
28
Van Zanten M, Boulet JR, Norcini J: Using a standardized patient assessment to measure professional attributes. Med Educ 39: 20, 2005.
-
29
Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Hatala R, et al: Context, conflict, and resolution: a new conceptual framework for evaluating professionalism. Acad Med 75: S6, 2000.
Differences in Faculty and Standardized Patient Scores on Professionalism for Second-Year Podiatric Medical Students During a Standardized Simulated Patient Encounter
Search for other papers by James M. Mahoney in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vassilios Vardaxis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Noreen Anwar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jacob Hagenbucher in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
This study examined the differences between faculty and trained standardized patient (SP) evaluations on student professionalism during a second-year podiatric medicine standardized simulated patient encounter.
Methods:
Forty-nine second-year podiatric medicine students were evaluated for their professionalism behavior. Eleven SPs performed an assessment in real-time, and one faculty member performed a secondary assessment after observing a videotape of the encounter. Five domains were chosen for evaluation from a validated professionalism assessment tool.
Results:
Significant differences were identified in the professionalism domains of “build a relationship” (P = .008), “gather information” (P = .001), and share information (P = .002), where the faculty scored the students higher than the SP for 24.5%, 18.9%, and 26.5% of the cases, respectively. In addition, the faculty scores were higher than the SP scores in all of the “gather information” subdomains; however, the difference in scores was significant only in the “question appropriately” (P = .001) and “listen and clarify” (P = .003) subdomains.
Conclusions:
This study showed that professionalism scores for second-year podiatric medical students during a simulated patient encounter varied significantly between faculty and SPs. Further consideration needs to be given to determine the source of these differences.
