Advertising Disclaimer
Published online June 2, 2008
PEDIATRICS Vol. 121 No. 6 June 2008, pp. e1633-e1645 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2637)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zimmer, K. P.
Right arrow Articles by Serwint, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zimmer, K. P.
Right arrow Articles by Serwint, J. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

Continuity-Structured Clinical Observations: Assessing the Multiple-Observer Evaluation in a Pediatric Resident Continuity Clinic

Karen P. Zimmer, MD, MPH, Barry S. Solomon, MD, MPH, George K. Siberry, MD, MPH, Janet R. Serwint, MD

Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

OBJECTIVES. The continuity-structured clinical observation tool was developed and used to conduct a multiple-observer evaluation to assess residents in the core competency areas of patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, and professionalism. The objectives were to assess pediatric resident performance in a continuity clinic by using direct observation and to compare evaluations among preceptors, residents, and parents.

METHODS. Pediatric residents in a large continuity clinic participated between August and December 2005. The continuity-structured clinical tool included items in the following domains: opening the interview, history taking, relationship skills, personal manner, negotiation or management, and physical examination. Each resident was directly observed during 1 entire patient encounter. Parents, preceptors, and residents completed evaluations by selecting 1 of 4 possible responses for performance of each item. We dichotomized responses as "yes" versus "no/partial" and analyzed aggregate scores for individual items and domains among the 3 evaluators by McNemar test, percentage agreement, and interoberserver agreement ({kappa}).

RESULTS. Fifty-four of 57 eligible residents had all 3 evaluations completed. Parents rated residents the highest and showed least variability (only 2 items for which parents indicated the task was completed in <90% of the encounters). Residents rated themselves the lowest (35 items with <90%). In comparing the residents and preceptors, the domains that had the lowest percentage of agreement were history taking (range: 61%–91%) and negotiation or management (range: 51%–88%). All of the evaluators scored residents the lowest in the domain of negotiation or management, with the following lowest-score items: probe for decision-makers, assess willingness and barriers, and use of visual aids.

CONCLUSIONS. Compared with parents, residents and preceptors demonstrated greater variability in resident performance evaluations. All of the evaluators scored residents lowest in the domain of negotiation or management during continuity-clinic visits. Residency programs should strongly consider emphasizing skill development in this area.

Key Words: multiple-observer assessments • resident education • continuity-clinic experience • continuity-structured clinical observations • CSCO

Abbreviations: ACGME—Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education • OSCE—objective structured clinical examination • CSCO—continuity-structured clinical observation • CI—confidence interval

Accepted Nov 14, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JAMAHome page
J. R. Kogan, E. S. Holmboe, and K. E. Hauer
Tools for Direct Observation and Assessment of Clinical Skills of Medical Trainees: A Systematic Review
JAMA, September 23, 2009; 302(12): 1316 - 1326.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]