Teaching communication skills in clinical settings: comparing two applications of a comprehensive program with standardized and real patients

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2014

Authors

IP Carvalho (Author) FMUP; Pais VG (Author) FMUP; Silva FR (Author) FMUP; R Martins (Author) FMUP; Figueiredo- Braga Margarida (Author) FMUP; Pedrosa R (Author) FMUP; Almeida SS (Author) FMUP; Correia LM (Author) FMUP; Ribeiro- Silva R (Author) FMUP; Castro-Vale I (Author) FMUP; Teles A (Author) Other; Mota Cardoso R. (Coordinator) FMUP

Journal

Title: BMC Medical Education

Vol. 14

Pages: 92-92

ISSN: 1472-6920

Publisher: Springer Nature

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 16 Citations

Scopus - 20 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-009-N5C

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-92

Abstract (EN): Background: Communication is important for the quality of clinical practice, and programs have been implemented to improve healthcare providers' communication skills. However, the consistency of programs teaching communication skills has received little attention, and debate exists about the application of acquired skills to real patients. This study inspects whether (1) results from a communication program are replicated with different samples, and (2) results with standardized patients apply to interviews with real patients. Methods: A structured, nine-month communication program was applied in two consecutive years to two different samples of healthcare professionals (25 in the first year, 20 in the second year). Results were assessed at four different points in time, each year, regarding participants' confidence levels (self-rated), basic communication skills in interviews with standardized patients, and basic communication skills in interviews with real patients. Data were analyzed using GLM Repeated-Measures procedures. Results: Improvements were statistically significant in both years in all measures except in simulated patients' assessment of the 2008 group. Differences between the two samples were non-significant. Differences between interviews with standardized and with real patients were also non-significant. Conclusions: The program's positive outcomes were replicated in different samples, and acquired skills were successfully applied to real-patient interviews. This reinforces this type of program structure as a valuable training tool, with results translating into real situations. It also adds to the reliability of the assessment instruments employed, though these may need adaptation in the case of real patients.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 9