Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24604483›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview.

Jenni Burt, Gary Abel, Natasha Elmore, John Campbell, Martin Roland, John Benson, Jonathan Silverman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Discussions about physical activity in general practice: analysis of video-recorded consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Barriers and Facilitators to the Initiation of Injectable Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Mixed Methods Study.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jenni BurtCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Gary Abel
Natasha Elmore
John Campbell
Martin Roland
John Benson
Jonathan Silverman

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor-patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations.

designMultiple ratings of simulated general practitioner (GP)-patient consultations by trained GP evaluators.

settingUK primary care.

participants21 GPs and six trained GP evaluators. OUTCOME MEASURES: GCRS score.

methods6 GP raters used GCRS to rate randomly assigned video recordings of GP consultations with simulated patients. Each of the 42 consultations was rated separately by four raters. We considered whether a fixed difference between scores had the same meaning at all levels of performance. We then examined the reliability of GCRS using mixed linear regression models. We augmented our regression model to also examine whether there were systematic biases between the scores given by different raters and to look for possible order effects.

resultsAssessing the communication quality of individual consultations, GCRS achieved a reliability of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.79) for two raters, 0.80 (0.54 to 0.85) for three and 0.85 (0.61 to 0.88) for four. We found an average difference of 1.65 (on a 0-10 scale) in the scores given by the least and most generous raters: adjusting for this evaluator bias increased reliability to 0.78 (0.53 to 0.83) for two raters; 0.85 (0.63 to 0.88) for three and 0.88 (0.69 to 0.91) for four. There were considerable order effects, with later consultations (after 15-20 ratings) receiving, on average, scores more than one point higher on a 0-10 scale.

conclusionsGCRS shows good reliability with three raters assessing each consultation. We are currently developing the scale further by assessing a large sample of real-world consultations.

Indexed as

CommunicationGeneral PractitionersPhysician-Patient RelationsQuality of Health CareClinical CompetenceGeneral PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicLinear ModelsObserver VariationPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareReferral and ConsultationReproducibility of ResultsUnited KingdomVideo RecordingMedical Education & TrainingStatistics & Research Methods

Identifiers

PMID24604483
PMCPMC3948635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.