4.5 Article

General principles to consider when designing a clinical communication assessment program

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 100, Issue 9, Pages 1762-1768

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.03.027

Keywords

Assessment; Communication skills; Formative; Summative; Feedback; Clinical communication

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Assessment of clinical communication helps teachers in healthcare education determine whether their learners have acquired sufficient skills to meet the demands of clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to give input to educators when planning how to incorporate assessment into clinical communication teaching by building on the authors' experience and current literature. Methods: A summary of the relevant literature within healthcare education is discussed, focusing on what and where to assess, how to implement assessment and how to choose appropriate methodology. Results: Establishing a coherent approach to teaching, training, and assessment, including assessing communication in the clinical context, is discussed. Key features of how to implement assessment are presented including: establishing a system with both formative and summative approaches, providing feedback that enhances learning and establishing a multi-source and longitudinal assessment program. Conclusions: The implementation of a reliable, valid, credible, feasible assessment method with specific educational relevance is essential for clinical communication teaching. Practice implications: All assessment methods have strengths and limitations. Since assessment drives learning, assessment should be aligned with the purpose of the teaching program. Combining the use of different assessment formats, multiple observations, and independent measurements in different settings is advised. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available