Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26692980›Full record

ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2015

A Tool to Assess Family Medicine Residents' Patient Encounters Using Secure Messaging.

Jung G Kim, Carl G Morris, Fred E Heidrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Jung G Kim
Carl G Morris
Fred E Heidrich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSecure messages exchanged between patients and family medicine residents via an electronic health record (EHR) could be used to assess residents' clinical and communication skills, but the mechanism is not well understood.

objectiveTo design and test a secure messaging competency assessment for family medicine residents in a patient-centered medical home (PCMH).

methodsUsing the existing literature and evidence-based guidelines, we designed an assessment tool to evaluate secure messaging competency for family medicine residents training in a PCMH. Core faculty performed 2-stage validity and reliability testing (n = 2 and n = 9, respectively). A series of randomly selected EHR secure messages (n = 45) were assessed from a sample of 10 residents across all years of training.

resultsThe secure message assessment tool provided data on a set of competencies and a framework for resident feedback. Assessment showed 10% (n = 2) of residents at the novice level, 50% (n = 10) as progressing, and 40% (n = 8) as proficient. The most common deficiencies for residents' secure messages related to communication rather than clinical competencies (n = 37 [90%] versus n = 4 [10%]). Interrater reliability testing ranged from 60% to 78% agreement and 20% to 44% disagreement. Disagreement centered on interpersonal communication factors. After 2 stages of testing, the assessment using residents' secure messages was incorporated into our existing evaluation process.

conclusionsAssessing family medicine residents' secure messaging for patient encounters closed an evaluation gap in our family medicine program, and offered residents feedback on their clinical and communication skills in a PCMH.

Indexed as

CommunicationInternship and ResidencyClinical CompetenceCurriculumEducational MeasurementElectronic Health RecordsFamily PracticeFeedbackHumansObserver VariationPatient-Centered CarePhysiciansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26692980
PMCPMC4675423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.