4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Assessment of communication and interpersonal skills competencies

Journal

ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages 1257-1269

Publisher

HANLEY & BELFUS INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01586.x

Keywords

communication; interpersonal skills; core competency; assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Excellent communication and interpersonal (C-IP) skills are a universal requirement for a well-rounded emergency physician. This requirement for C-IP skill excellence is a direct outgrowth of the expectations of our patients and a prerequisite to working in the increasingly complex emergency department environment. Directed education and assessment of C-IP skills are critical components of all emergency medicine (EM) training programs and now are a requirement of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Outcome Project. In keeping with its mission to improve the quality of EM education and in response to the ACGME Outcome Project, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors (CORD-EM) hosted a consensus conference focusing on the application of the six core competencies to EM. The objective of this article is to report the results of this consensus conference as it relates to the C-IP competency. There were four primary goals: 1) define the C-IP skills competency for EM, 2) define the assessment methods currently used in other specialties, 3) identify the methods suggested by the ACGME for use in C-IP skills, and 4) analyze the applicability of these assessment techniques to EM. Ten specific communication competencies are defined for EM. Assessment techniques for evaluation of these C-IP competencies and a timeline for implementation are also defined. Standardized patients and direct observation were identified as the criterion standard assessment methods of C-IP skills; however, other methods for assessment are also discussed.

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