Examiner and simulated patient ratings of empathy in medical student final year clinical examination: are they useful?

BMC Medical Education

Andrew Brown²  Victoria L Allgar²  Lewys Morgan²  Jean McKendree²  Barry Wright¹ 

[1] Child Adolescent Mental Health Service, 31 Shipton Lane, York YO30 5RE, UK;Hull York Medical School, John Hughlings Jackson Building, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK

关键词: OSCE;    OSLER;    Final clinical examination;    Simulated patients;    Medical students;    Empathy;   

Others  :  1091134
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-199

 received in 2014-03-19, accepted in 2014-08-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Many medical schools state that empathy is important and have curricular learning outcomes covering its teaching. It is thought to be useful in team-working, good bedside manner, patient perspective taking, and improved patient care. Given this, one might expect it to be measured in assessment processes. Despite this, there is relatively little literature exploring how measures of empathy in final clinical examinations in medical school map onto other examination scores. Little is known about simulated patient (actors) rating of empathy in examinations in terms of inter-rater reliability compared with clinical assessors or correlation with overall examination results.

Methods

Examiners in final year clinical assessments in one UK medical school rated 133 students on five constructs in Objective Structured Long Examination Record (OSLER) with real patients: gathering information, physical examination, problem solving, managing the diagnosis, and relationship with the patient. Scores were based on a standardized well-established penalty point system. In separate Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) stations, different examiners used the same penalty point system to score performance in both interactional and procedural stations. In the four interaction-based OSCE stations, examiners and simulated patient actors also independently rated empathy of the students.

Results

The OSLER score, based on penalty points, had a correlation of −0.38 with independent ratings of empathy from the interactional OSCE stations. The intra-class correlation (a measure of inter-rater reliability) between the observing clinical tutor and ratings from simulated patients was 0.645 with very similar means. There was a significant difference between the empathy scores of the 94 students passing the first part of the sequential examination, based on combined OSCE and OSLER scores (which did not include the empathy scores), and 39 students with sufficient penalty points to trigger attendance for the second part (Cohen’s d = 0.81).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that empathy ratings are related to clinical performance as measured by independent examiners. Simulated patient actors are able to give clinically meaningful assessment scores. This gives preliminary evidence that such empathy ratings could be useful for formative learning, and bolsters the call for more research to test whether they are robust enough to be used summatively.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Wright et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Monroe A, Quinn E, Samuelson W, Dunleavy DM, Dowd KW: An overview of the medical school admission process and use of applicant data in decision making: what has changed since the 1980s? Acad Med 2013, 88:672-681.
• [2]Brown CA, Lilford RJ: Selecting medical students. BMJ 2008, 336:786.
• [3]Stepien KA, Baernstein A: Educating for empathy. J Gen Intern Med 2005, 21:524-530.
• [4]Hemmerdinger JM, Stoddart SDR, Lilford RJ: A systematic review of tests of empathy in medicine. BMC Med Educ 2007, 7:24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Halpern J: What is clinical empathy? J Gen Intern Med 2003, 18:670-674.
• [6]Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board: Educating Tomorrow’s Doctors – Future Models of Medical Training; Medical Workforce Shape and Training Expectations. London: PMETB; 2008.
• [7]The King’s Fund: The Quality of Patient Engagement and Involvement in Primary Care. An Enquiry Into the Quality of General Practice in England. London: The King’s Fund; 2010.
• [8]Wass V, Van der Vleuten C, Shatzer J, Jones R: Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet 2001, 357:945-949.
• [9]Bellet PS, Maloney MJ: The importance of empathy as an interviewing skill in medicine. JAMA 1991, 266:1831-1832.
• [10]Hojat M, Gonella JS, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Veloski JJ, Erdmann JB, Callahan CA, Magee M: Empathy in medical students as compared to academic performance, clinical competence and gender. Med Educ 2002, 36:522-527.
• [11]Suchman A, Markakis K, Beckman H, Frankel R: A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. JAMA 1997, 27:678-682.
• [12]Charon R: Narrative medicine: a model for empathy, reflection, profession and trust. JAMA 2001, 286:1897-1902.
• [13]Butow P, Maclean M, Dunn S, Tattersall M, Boyer M: The dynamics of change: cancer patients’ preferences for information, involvement and support. Ann Oncol 1997, 8:857-863.
• [14]Roter D, Hall J, Merisca R, Nordstrom B, Cretin D, Svarstad B: Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance: a meta-analysis. Med Care 1997, 36:1138-1161.
• [15]Thomas MR, Dyrbye LN, Hintington JF, Lawson KL, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD: How do distress and well-being relate to medical student empathy? a multicenter study. J Gen Intern Med 2007, 22:177-183.
• [16]Brazeau C, Schroeder R, Rovi S, Boyd L: Relationship between medical student burnout, empathy, and professionalism climate. Acad Med 2010, 85:S33-S36.
• [17]Hodges B, Turnbull J, Cohen R, Bienenstock A, Norman G: Evaluating communication skills in the structured clinical examination format: reliability and generalizability. Med Educ 2009, 30:38-43.
• [18]Duffy FD, Gordon GH, Whelan G, Cole-Kelly K, Frankel R: Assessing competence in communication and inter-personal skills. the Kalamzoo II report. Acad Med 2004, 79:495-507.
• [19]Stratton TD, Elam CL, Murphy-Spencer AE, Quinlivan SL: Emotional intelligence and clinical skills. preliminary results from a comprehensive clinical performance examination. Acad Med 2005, 80:S34-S37.
• [20]Kataoka H, Koide N, Ochi K, Hojat M, Gonella J: Measurement of empathy among Japanese medical students: psychometric and scores differences by gender and level of general education. Acad Med 2009, 84:1192-1197.
• [21]Ogle J, Bushnell JA, Caputi P: Empathy is related to clinical competence in medical care. Med Educ 2013, 47:824-831.
• [22]Nicolai J, Demmel R, Hagen J: Rating scales for the assessment of empathic communication in medical interviews (REM): scale development, reliability and validity. J ClinPsycholin Med Settings 2007, 14:367-375.
• [23]Wallace J, Rao R, Haslam R: Simulated patients and objective structured clinical examinations: review of their use in medical education. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2002, 8:342-348.
• [24]Evans BJ, Stanley RO, Burrows GD: Measuring medical students empathy skills. Br J Med Psychol 1993, 66:121-133.
• [25]de Champlain AF, Margolis MJ, King A, Klass DJ: Using standardized patients for teaching and assessment. Acad Med 1997, 72:S85-S87.
• [26]Epstein RM, Hundert EM: Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002, 287:226-235.
• [27]Berg K, Majdan JF, Berg D, Veloski J, Hojat M: Medical students self-reported empathy and simulated patients assessments of students empathy: − an analysis by gender and ethnicity. Acad Med 2011, 86:984-988.
• [28]Jang SS, Seo JH, Cho GJ, Hong SC, Woo HO: Correlation of communication skills for emotional empathy and academic achievement on clinical performance examinations. Korean J Med Educ 2010, 22(2):121-130.
• [29]Cookson J, Fagan G, Mohsen A, McKendree J, Crossley J: A final clinical examination using a sequential design to improve cost-effectiveness. Med Educ 2011, 45:741-747.
• [30]Decety J, Jackson P: The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cog Neuro Rev 2004, 3:71-100.
• [31]Blair RJ: Responding to the emotions of others: dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Conscious Cogn 2005, 14:698-718.
• [32]Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
• [33]Landis JR, Koch GC: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [34]Wear D, Varley JD: Rituals of verification: the role of simulation in developing and evaluating empathic communication. Pat Educ Couns 2008, 71(2):153-156.
• [35]Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Gonella JS: Empathy scores in medical school and 440 ratings of empathetic behaviour 3 years later. J Soc Psychol 2005, 14:663-672.
• [36]Eysenbach G: Medical students see that academic misconduct is common. BMJ 2001, 322:1307.
• [37]Jarski RW, Gjerde CL, Bratton BD, Brown DD, Matthes SS: A comparison of four empathy instruments in simulated patient medical student interactions. J Med Educ 1985, 60:545-551.