Trial reportAtencion primaria2000
[Design of a method for the evaluation of clinical competence in primary care].
Trial report in Atencion primaria, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure clinical competence in primary care (PC).
designDescriptive cross-sectional study.
settingSix PC teams in Barcelona.
participants25 family doctors volunteering out of a total of 60. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsThree simulated visits took place on three different days, allocated at random as a prior appointment for hypertension. Clinical competence was measured through the Miller criteria, a method with open short-reply questions combining the clinical interview with standardised patients (SP), review of clinical histories (CH) and doctor's self-evaluation (DS). The following components of competence (CC) were evaluated: anamnesis, physical examination, further tests, differential diagnosis, management, clinical history and communication. 22 doctors completed the study. Each CC was weighted by a group of experts, who also agreed two minimum levels of competence, 50% and 60%. Each doctor's final score was the result of the addition of each of the three cases divided by the maximum score possible. The CC values were always higher with SP than otherwise. 63.3% of doctors surpassed the 60% mark, and 90.9% the 50% mark. Internal consistency, measured with Cronbach's alpha, was 0.94, 0.73 and 0.67 for each clinical case. The kappa reproduction test was 0.25.
conclusionsThe use of SP is a good method of evaluation, as it enables anamnesis, management of the patient, physical examination and communication to be assessed. The study is very reliable, with low reproduction, which is probably due to the few cases used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.