PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David Heaney

Publications and source records attributed to David Heaney.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

The consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure.

BACKGROUND: Empathy is a key aspect of the clinical encounter but there is a lack of patient-assessed measures suitable for general clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to develop a consultation process measure based on a broad definition of empathy, which is meaningful to patients irrespective of their socio-economic background. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to develop and validate the new measure, which we have called the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlational analysis against other validated measures in a series of three pilot studies in general practice (in areas of high or low socio-economic deprivation). Face and content validity was investigated by 43 interviews with patients from both types of areas, and by feedback from GPs and expert researchers in the field. RESULTS: The initial version of the new measure (pilot 1; high deprivation practice) correlated strongly (r = 0.85) with the Reynolds empathy measure (RES) and the Barrett-Lennard empathy subscale (BLESS) (r = 0.63), but had a highly skewed distribution (skew -1.879, kurtosis 3.563). Statistical analysis, and feedback from the 20 patients interviewed, the GPs and the expert researchers, led to a number of modifications. The revised, second version of the CARE measure, tested in an area of low deprivation (pilot 2) also correlated strongly with the established empathy measures (r = 0.84 versus RES and r = 0.77 versus BLESS) but had a less skewed distribution (skew -0.634, kurtosis -0.067). Internal reliability of the revised version was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). Patient feedback at interview (n = 13) led to only minor modification. The final version of the CARE measure, tested in pilot 3 (high deprivation practice) confirmed the validation with the other empathy measures (r = 0.85 versus RES and r = 0.84 versus BLESS) and the face validity (feedback from 10 patients). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results support the validity and reliability of the CARE measure as a tool for measuring patients' perceptions of relational empathy in the consultation.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Do patients and expert doctors agree on the assessment of consultation skills? A comparison of two patient consultation assessment scales with the video component of the MRCGP.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether patient ratings of general practice Registrars' consulting skills are associated with 'expert' scoring using the MRCGP video assessment protocol. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study of general practice Registrars' consultation skills was carried out in 23 practices in South East Scotland using two types of patient assessment compared with expert assessment of video consultation. The main outcome measures were rank correlation of Registrars' overall level of attainment on the Royal College of General Practitioner (RCGP) video assessment with mean score on the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) and mean score on the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ). RESULTS: The rank correlation of Registrars' mean PEI scores with marks on the RCGP video component was 0.01 (P = 0.97, n = 19) and mean CSQ score 0.05 (P = 0.83, n = 19). There were no adverse comments from patients, but Registrars and trainers found the process onerous. CONCLUSION: No meaningful association was identified between Registrars' score on the RCGP video examination and patient assessment via either the PEI or the CSQ. This suggests that, with regard to measuring quality in the consultation, one or more of the assessments are invalid or that they are measuring different attributes. Further research to elucidate the reasons for the lack of correlation is required.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2002

Telephone consultations to manage requests for same-day appointments: a randomised controlled trial in two practices.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) in the United Kingdom have recently begun to adopt the use of telephone consultation during daytime surgery as a means of managing demand, particularly requests for same-day appointments. However, it is not known whether the strategy actually reduces GP workload. AIM: To investigate how the use of telephone consultations impacts on the management of requests for same-day appointments, on resource use, indicators of clinical care, and patient perceptions of consultations. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: All patients (n = 388) seeking same-day appointments in each surgery in two urban practices (total population = 10,420) over a four-week period. METHOD: The primary outcome measure was use of doctor time for the index telephone or face-to-face consultation. Secondary outcomes were subsequent use of investigations and of services in the two-week period following consultation, frequency of blood pressure measurement and antibiotic prescriptions, and number of problems considered at consultation. Patient perceptions were measured by the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) and reported willingness to use telephone consultations in the future. RESULTS: Telephone consultations took less time (8.2 minutes versus 6.7 minutes; diff = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 2.4, P = 0.002). Patients consulting by telephone reconsulted the GP more frequently in the two weeks that followed (0.6 consultations versus 0.4 consultations; diff = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.0 to 0.3, P = 0.01). Blood pressure was measured more often in the group of patients managed face-to-face (25/188 [13.3%] versus 12/181 [6.6%]; diff = 6.7%, 95% CI = 0.6% to 12.7%). There was no significant difference in patient perceptions or other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Use of telephone consultations for same-day appointments was associated with time saving, and did not result in lower PEI scores. Possibly, however, this short-term saving was offset by higher re-consultation and less use of opportunistic health promotion.

Appointments and Schedules↗