Pro forma: impact on communication skills?

Marie Morris, Gary Donohoe, Martina Hennessy, Caoilte O Ciardha
{"title":"Pro forma: impact on communication skills?","authors":"Marie Morris,&nbsp;Gary Donohoe,&nbsp;Martina Hennessy,&nbsp;Caoilte O Ciardha","doi":"10.1111/tct.12062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A doctor performs 160 000-300 000 interviews during a lifetime career, thus making the medical interview the most common procedure in clinical medicine. It is reported that 60-80 per cent of diagnosis is based on history taking, yet there is little published data advising on the best method for medical students to initially attain and further refine these core skills during their medical degree.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medical students interviewed two patients: using an open interview first, based on the Calgary-Cambridge approach, and then using a structured pro forma. The students' medical data were assessed by a senior lecturer, and their communication skills were assessed by a behavioural scientist and by the patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An exact Wilcoxon paired signed rank test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference between the open interview and pro forma methods for history taking and communication skills. The test yielded p-values of 0.0017 and 0.069, respectively, with the pro forma method providing a statistically significantly higher history-taking score and communication score than the open interview method. Subjectively, patients reported the pro forma method as being preferable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Medical students in the early years of training benefit from a structured history-taking pro forma to assist them gather an accurate data set without compromising their interpersonal and communication skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":74987,"journal":{"name":"The clinical teacher","volume":"10 5","pages":"318-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/tct.12062","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The clinical teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: A doctor performs 160 000-300 000 interviews during a lifetime career, thus making the medical interview the most common procedure in clinical medicine. It is reported that 60-80 per cent of diagnosis is based on history taking, yet there is little published data advising on the best method for medical students to initially attain and further refine these core skills during their medical degree.

Methods: Medical students interviewed two patients: using an open interview first, based on the Calgary-Cambridge approach, and then using a structured pro forma. The students' medical data were assessed by a senior lecturer, and their communication skills were assessed by a behavioural scientist and by the patients.

Results: An exact Wilcoxon paired signed rank test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference between the open interview and pro forma methods for history taking and communication skills. The test yielded p-values of 0.0017 and 0.069, respectively, with the pro forma method providing a statistically significantly higher history-taking score and communication score than the open interview method. Subjectively, patients reported the pro forma method as being preferable.

Conclusion: Medical students in the early years of training benefit from a structured history-taking pro forma to assist them gather an accurate data set without compromising their interpersonal and communication skills.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预估:对沟通技巧的影响?
背景:一名医生在一生的职业生涯中进行16万至30万次访谈,从而使医学访谈成为临床医学中最常见的程序。据报告,60- 80%的诊断是基于病史,但很少有公开的数据建议医科学生在获得医学学位期间最初获得并进一步完善这些核心技能的最佳方法。方法:医学生对两名患者进行访谈:首先采用基于卡尔加里-剑桥方法的开放式访谈,然后采用结构化形式访谈。学生的医疗数据由一名高级讲师评估,他们的沟通技巧由一名行为科学家和患者评估。结果:进行了精确的Wilcoxon配对符号秩检验,以确定在历史记录和沟通技巧方面公开访谈和形式方法之间是否存在差异。检验的p值分别为0.0017和0.069,形式法提供的历史记录得分和沟通得分比开放访谈法具有统计学显著性。主观上,患者报告的形式方法是可取的。结论:医学生在早期的训练中受益于结构化的历史记录形式,以帮助他们收集准确的数据集,而不损害他们的人际交往和沟通技巧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Characterising ableism to promote inclusivity within clinical teaching. When technology fails during simulation: Time for reflection? 'Comfort Club': Student-run volunteering on the neonatal intensive care unit. The hidden pandemic: Student perspectives on domestic violence education. Learning and satisfaction in a student-led clinic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1