| Title |
Fellow use of medical jargon correlates inversely with patient and observer perceptions of professionalism: results of a rheumatology OSCE (ROSCE) using challenging patient scenarios
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-015-3113-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jessica R. Berman, Juliet Aizer, Anne R. Bass, Irene Blanco, Anne Davidson, Edward Dwyer, Theodore R. Fields, Wei-Ti Huang, Jane S. Kang, Leslie D. Kerr, Svetlana Krasnokutsky-Samuels, Deana M. Lazaro, Julie S. Schwartzman-Morris, Stephen A. Paget, Michael H. Pillinger |
| Abstract |
The NYC Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination (NYC-ROSCE) is held annually to assess fellow competencies. We recently redesigned our OSCE to better assess subspecialty trainee communication skills and professionalism by developing scenarios in which the patients encountered were psychosocially or medically complex. The objective of this study is to identify which types of verbal and non-verbal skills are most important in the perception of professionalism in the patient-physician interaction. The 2012-2013 NYC-ROSCEs included a total of 53 fellows: 55 MD evaluators from 7 NYC rheumatology training programs (Hospital for Special Surgery-Weill Cornell (HSS), SUNY/Downstate, NYU, Einstein, Columbia, Mount Sinai, and North Shore/Long Island Jewish (NSLIJ)), and 55 professional actors/standardized patients participated in 5 stations. Quantitative fellow performance assessments were made on the following: maintaining composure; partnering with the patient; honesty; professionalism; empathy; and accountability. Free-text comments were solicited regarding specific strengths and weaknesses. A total of 53/53 eligible (100 %) fellows were evaluated. MD evaluators rated fellows lower for professionalism than did the standardized patients (6.8 ± 0.6 vs. 7.4 ± 0.8, p = 0.05), suggesting that physicians and patients view professionalism somewhat differently. Fellow self-evaluations for professionalism (6.6 ± 1.2) were concordant with those of the MD evaluators. Ratings of empathy by fellows themselves (6.6 ± 1.0), MD evaluators (6.6 ± 0.7), and standardized patients (6.6 ± 1.1) agreed closely. Jargon use, frequently cited by evaluators, showed a moderate association with lower professionalism ratings by both MD evaluators and patients. Psychosocially challenging patient encounters in the NYC-ROSCE permitted critical assessment of the patient-centered traits contributing to impressions of professionalism and indicate that limiting medical jargon is an important component of the competency of professionalism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Librarian | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 24% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,880,980
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#388
of 3,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,945
of 386,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.