Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) to Assess Communication Skills ofFamily Medicine Residents<br />Linda Myerho...
CAT<br />14-item patient satisfaction survey<br />Physician interpersonal and communication skills<br />Development based ...
Individualized Resident Sample Report<br />
Objectives<br />Gather benchmarking data for the use of the CAT in Family Medicine residency programs <br />Examine differ...
Sample & Methods<br />Six Family Medicine residency programs <br />Midwest & East coast<br />Urban, suburban, rural commun...
Scoring:<br />Mean ratings<br />Overall <br />By item<br />Percentage of “Excellent” ratings <br />Overall<br />By Item<br />
Demographic Characteristics of Residents<br />
Results<br />Overall mean percent “excellent” = 69.7% (SD = 40.4)<br />Items rated most frequently as “excellent”<br />Pai...
Training Year<br />Overall p = .015 <br />PGY 1 vs. PGY 2 p =.018 ; PGY 1 vs. PGY 3 = p =.004 ; PGY 2 vs. PGY 3 = p = .55 ...
Native Language<br />p = .06<br />
Gender<br />p = .81<br />
Limitations<br />Sample = Convenience sample of volunteering programs<br />Variability in the number of surveys collected ...
Advantages<br />Measures patient’s perspective<br />User friendly administration & scoring<br />Provides empirical measure...
Lessons Learned & Future Needs<br />Increase sample sizes<br />Evaluate changes over time<br />Consider efficacy of a mini...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) to Assess Communication Skills of Family Medicine Residents by Myerholtz, Simons, Felix, Nguyen, Brennan, Rivera-Tovar, Martin, Hepworth and Makoul

4,050 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) to Assess Communication Skills of Family Medicine Residents by Myerholtz, Simons, Felix, Nguyen, Brennan, Rivera-Tovar, Martin, Hepworth and Makoul

  1. 1. Using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) to Assess Communication Skills ofFamily Medicine Residents<br />Linda Myerholtz, Ph.D., Lynn Simons , Psy.D. , Sumi Felix, M.D., Tuan Nguyen, M.D. , Julie Brennan, Ph.D., Ana Rivera-Tovar, Ph.D., Pat Martin, PCC, Jeri Hepworth, Ph.D., Gregory Makoul, Ph.D. <br />
  2. 2. CAT<br />14-item patient satisfaction survey<br />Physician interpersonal and communication skills<br />Development based on sound psychometric methods<br />5-point rating scale:<br />1 = poor 2 = fair 3 = good 4 = very good 5 = excellent<br />Paper and pencil, phone, internet administration<br />Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang C. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: Development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 67:333-342.<br />
  3. 3. Individualized Resident Sample Report<br />
  4. 4. Objectives<br />Gather benchmarking data for the use of the CAT in Family Medicine residency programs <br />Examine differences based on:<br />Year in training<br />Native language of the resident (native English speaking vs. non-native English speaking)<br />Gender<br />
  5. 5. Sample & Methods<br />Six Family Medicine residency programs <br />Midwest & East coast<br />Urban, suburban, rural communities<br />13-38 residents per program<br />127 residents <br />Data Collection: Nov 2008- Dec 2008<br />Paper and pencil version of the CAT<br />1,880 complete/useable surveys <br />
  6. 6. Scoring:<br />Mean ratings<br />Overall <br />By item<br />Percentage of “Excellent” ratings <br />Overall<br />By Item<br />
  7. 7. Demographic Characteristics of Residents<br />
  8. 8. Results<br />Overall mean percent “excellent” = 69.7% (SD = 40.4)<br />Items rated most frequently as “excellent”<br />Paid attention to me (73.6%)<br />Treated me with respect (72.8%)<br />Showed care and concern (72.6%)<br />Items rated least frequently as “excellent”<br />Encouraged me to ask questions (63.2%)<br />Involved me in decisions (64.9%)<br />Consistent with Makoul et al.’s findings for practicing physicians<br />
  9. 9. Training Year<br />Overall p = .015 <br />PGY 1 vs. PGY 2 p =.018 ; PGY 1 vs. PGY 3 = p =.004 ; PGY 2 vs. PGY 3 = p = .55 <br />
  10. 10. Native Language<br />p = .06<br />
  11. 11. Gender<br />p = .81<br />
  12. 12. Limitations<br />Sample = Convenience sample of volunteering programs<br />Variability in the number of surveys collected per resident<br />
  13. 13. Advantages<br />Measures patient’s perspective<br />User friendly administration & scoring<br />Provides empirical measure of core ACGME competency<br />Differentiates between residents <br />Easy to track changes over time<br />Benchmark data now available <br />
  14. 14. Lessons Learned & Future Needs<br />Increase sample sizes<br />Evaluate changes over time<br />Consider efficacy of a minimum passing score<br />58% has been recommended2<br />Continue to expand benchmarking data<br />2Wayne D, Cohen E, Makoul G, McGaghie W. The impact of judge selection on standard setting for a patient survey of physician communication skills. Acad Med 2008; 83: S17-20.<br />

×