ArticleAEM education and training2021
Correlation of attending and patient assessment of resident communication skills in the emergency department.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Residents' Communication Skills and Patient-Centered Care: An Eight- year Observational Study from Lebanon.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a scoring system to assess proficiency in cerebral angiography for neuroendovascular surgery education.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Correlation of attending and patient assessment of resident communication skills in the emergency department.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunication and interpersonal skills are one of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's six core competencies. Validated methods for assessing these among trainees are lacking. Educators have developed various communication assessment tools from both the supervising attending and the patient perspectives. How these different assessment methods and tools compare with each other remains unknown. The goal of this study was to determine the degree of agreement between attending and patient assessment of resident communication skills.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of emergency medicine (EM) residents at an academic medical center. From July 2017 to June 2018, residents were assessed on communication skills during their emergency department shifts by both their supervising attending physicians and their patients. The attendings rated residents' communication skills with patients, colleagues, and nursing/ancillary staff using a 1 to 5 Likert scale. Patients completed the modified Communication Assessment Tool (CAT), a 14-item questionnaire based on a 1 to 5 Likert scale. Mean attending ratings and patient CAT scores were calculated for each resident. Means were divided into tertiles due to nonparametric distribution of scores. Agreement between attending and patient ratings of residents were measured using Cohen's kappa for each attending evaluation question. Scores were weighted to assign adjacent tertiles partial agreement.
resultsDuring the study period, 1,097 attending evaluations and 952 patient evaluations were completed for 26 residents. Attending scores and CAT scores of the residents showed slight to fair agreement in the following three domains: patient communication (κ = 0.21), communication with colleagues (κ = 0.21), and communication with nursing/ancillary staff (κ = 0.26).
conclusionsAttending and patient ratings of EM residents' communication skills show slight to fair agreement. The use of different types of raters may be beneficial in fully assessing trainees' communication skills.
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.