ArticleBMC health services research2014
Unannounced standardized patients: a promising method of assessing patient-centered care in your health care system.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Twelve Tips for Recognizing and Addressing the Adverse Effects of Medical Education Interventions: Tutorial.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Finding the right words: A skills-based curriculum using verbal procedures to address implicit bias in clinical encounters.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
- General dentists' treatment plans in response to cosmetic complains; a field study using unannounced-standardized-patient.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The impact of provider-patient communication skills on primary healthcare quality and patient satisfaction in rural China: insights from a standardized patient study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Assessing the Impact of Standardized Patient Encounters on Students' Medical History-taking Skills in Practice.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2023Article
- Comparison of Primary Care Patients' and Unannounced Standardized Patients' Perceptions of Care.Journal of patient experience · 2023Article
- Development of an unannounced standardized patient protocol to evaluate opioid use disorder treatment in pregnancy for American Indian and rural communities.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2021Article
- The Association Between Patient-Centered Communication and Primary Care Quality in Urban China: Evidence From a Standardized Patient Study.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- A Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management Strategies on COVID-19 Infection to Outpatient Health Care Workers in the Post-Pandemic Period.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Article
- Validation of a Standardized Patient Checklist for Patient-Centered Communication: The G-PACER.Medical science educator · 2018Article
- Assessing Residents' Veteran-Centered Care Skills in the Clinical Setting.Journal of graduate medical education · 2018Article
- The Benefits and Risks of Being a Standardized Patient: A Narrative Review of the Literature.The patient · 2016Review
- Directly observed care: can unannounced standardized patients address a gap in performance measurement?Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile unannounced standardized patients (USPs) have been used to assess physicians' clinical skills in the ambulatory setting, they can also provide valuable information on patients' experience of the health care setting beyond the physician encounter. This paper explores the use of USPs as a methodology for evaluating patient-centered care in the health care system.
methodsUSPs were trained to complete a behaviorally-anchored assessment of core dimensions of patient-centered care delivered within the clinical microsystem, including: 1) Medical assistants' safe practices, quality of care, and responsiveness to patients; 2) ease of clinic navigation; and 3) the patient-centeredness of care provided by the physician. Descriptive data is provided on these three levels of patient-centeredness within the targeted clinical microsystem. Chi-square analyses were used to signal whether variations by teams within the clinical microsystem were likely to be due to chance or might reflect true differences in patient-centeredness of specific teams.
resultsSixty USP visits to 11 Primary Care teams were performed over an eight-month period (mean 5 visits/team; range 2-8). No medical assistants reported detecting an USP during the study period. USPs found the clinic easy to navigate and that teams were functioning well in 60% of visits. In 30% to 47% of visits, the physicians could have been more patient-centered. Medical assistants' patient safety measures were poor: patient identity was confirmed in only 5% of visits and no USPs observed medical assistants wash their hands. Quality of care was relatively high for vital signs (e.g. blood pressure, weight and height), but low for depression screening, occurring in only 15% of visits. In most visits, medical assistants greeted the patient in a timely fashion but took time to fully explain matters in less than half of the visits and rarely introduced themselves. Physicians tried to help patients navigate the system in 62% of visits.
conclusionsUSP assessment captured actionable, critical, behaviorally-specific information on team and system performance in an urban community clinic. This methodology provides unique insight into the patient-centeredness and quality of care in medical settings.
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.