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.
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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A scale assessing doctor-patient communication in a context of acute conditions based on a systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Impact of simulation training on communication skills and informed consent practices in medical students- a randomised controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Finite State Machine-Guided Retrieval-Augmented Generation Improves Expert-Rated Acceptability of a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Self-Management Chatbot: Single-Center Content Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Patient-centred care measurement in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review of the evidence (1990-2024).International health · 2026Article
- Registered nurse-patient communication and decision-making in primary care consultations: a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Observational
- 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 · 2025Article
- Integrating psychiatry and family medicine in the management of somatic symptom disorders: Diagnosis, collaboration, and communication strategies.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Patient-Clinician Communication During Cardiology Telemedicine Consultations: A Feasibility Study.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- A simulation-based OSCE with case presentation and remote rating - development of a prototype.GMS journal for medical education · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- Communication skills of general practitioners in Nairobi, Kenya: a descriptive observational study.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Quality in Clinical Consultations: A Cross-Sectional Study.Clinics and practice · 2022Article
- Development and implementation of a tool for measuring the training effectiveness of the patient-centered consultation model.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2022Article
- A scoping review protocol of non-verbal communication utilised in peri-interventive dental and medical procedures.HRB open research · 2022Article
- Teaching and assessing communication skills in the postgraduate medical setting: a systematic scoping review.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Doctor-patient communication skills: a survey on knowledge and practice of Iranian family physicians.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- Implementation of national antenatal hypertension guidelines: a multicentre multiple methods study.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.