Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Validation of a Standardized Patient Checklist for Patient-Centered Communication: the G-PACER

Validation of a Standardized Patient Checklist for Patient-Centered Communication: the G-PACER This study sought to validate the Georgetown PAtient-CEnteredness Rating Scale (G-PACER) standardized patient (SP) checklist as a measure of patient-centered communication in patient-provider interactions. Patient centeredness is associated with improved doctor-patient communication and better health outcomes. Simulated medical encounters using SPs are an important way to teach and evaluate provider communication skills, yet validated SP scales that focus on patient-centered communication are limited. Two versions of an SP checklist of provider interaction behaviors, the G-PACER, were developed as part of a training designed to improve relationships between providers and patients who have experienced trauma. Concurrent validity of the G-PACER was assessed with Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) summary scores, particularly the patient centeredness summary score. Item-total correlations were conducted to determine which items should be retained for future versions of the scale. Scores on the G-PACER were significantly correlated with the RIAS patient centeredness score. Correlation analysis also revealed significant associations between G-PACER total score and RIAS global affect ratings. The 12-item version of the G-PACER was performed at a commensurate level with the longer version; thus, its use is recommended in future research. This study represents an important step in the development of reliable, valid, and efficient tools to add to those available for evaluating patient-provider interactions from the SP perspective. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Medical Science Educator Springer Journals

Validation of a Standardized Patient Checklist for Patient-Centered Communication: the G-PACER

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/validation-of-a-standardized-patient-checklist-for-patient-centered-lmUpNbeaBn

References (44)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by International Association of Medical Science Educators
Subject
Education; Medical Education
eISSN
2156-8650
DOI
10.1007/s40670-018-0558-x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study sought to validate the Georgetown PAtient-CEnteredness Rating Scale (G-PACER) standardized patient (SP) checklist as a measure of patient-centered communication in patient-provider interactions. Patient centeredness is associated with improved doctor-patient communication and better health outcomes. Simulated medical encounters using SPs are an important way to teach and evaluate provider communication skills, yet validated SP scales that focus on patient-centered communication are limited. Two versions of an SP checklist of provider interaction behaviors, the G-PACER, were developed as part of a training designed to improve relationships between providers and patients who have experienced trauma. Concurrent validity of the G-PACER was assessed with Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) summary scores, particularly the patient centeredness summary score. Item-total correlations were conducted to determine which items should be retained for future versions of the scale. Scores on the G-PACER were significantly correlated with the RIAS patient centeredness score. Correlation analysis also revealed significant associations between G-PACER total score and RIAS global affect ratings. The 12-item version of the G-PACER was performed at a commensurate level with the longer version; thus, its use is recommended in future research. This study represents an important step in the development of reliable, valid, and efficient tools to add to those available for evaluating patient-provider interactions from the SP perspective.

Journal

Medical Science Educator – Springer Journals

Published: Mar 8, 2018

There are no references for this article.