The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Physician Scores on a National Clinical Skills Examination as Predictors of Complaints to Medical Regulatory Authorities
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Poor patient-physician communication increases the risk of patient complaints and malpractice claims. To address this problem, licensure assessment has been reformed in Canada and the United States, including a national standardized assessment of patient-physician communication and clinical history taking and examination skills. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patient-physician communication examination scores in the clinical skills examination predicted future complaints in medical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study of all 3424 physicians taking the Medical Council of Canada clinical skills examination between 1993 and 1996 who were licensed to practice in Ontario and/or Quebec. Participants were followed up until 2005, including the first 2 to 12 years of practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient complaints against study physicians that were filed with medical regulatory authorities in Ontario or Quebec and retained after investigation. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to estimate the relationship between complaint rate and scores on the clinical skills examination and traditional written examination. Scores are based on a standardized mean (SD) of 500 (100). RESULTS: Overall, 1116 complaints were filed for 3424 physicians, and 696 complaints were retained after investigation. Of the physicians, 17.1% had at least 1 retained complaint, of which 81.9% were for communication or quality-of-care problems. Patient-physician communication scores for study physicians ranged from 31 to 723 (mean [SD], 510.9 [91.1]). A 2-SD decrease in communication score was associated with 1.17 more retained complaints per 100 physicians per year (relative risk [RR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.61) and 1.20 more communication complaints per 100 practice-years (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.15-1.77). After adjusting for the predictive ability of the clinical decision-making score in the traditional written examination, the patient-physician communication score in the clinical skills examination remained significantly predictive of retained complaints (likelihood ratio test, P < .001), with scores in the bottom quartile explaining an additional 9.2% (95% CI, 4.7%-13.1%) of complaints. CONCLUSION: Scores achieved in patient-physician communication and clinical decision making on a national licensing examination predicted complaints to medical regulatory authorities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Disciplinary Action by Medical Boards and Prior Behavior in Medical School
Papadakis, M. A., Teherani, A., Banach, M. A., Knettler, T. R., Rattner, S. L., Stern, D. T., Veloski, J. J., & Hodgson, C. S. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa052596 · Cited by 840
Cited by
Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees
Eva, K. W., Reiter, H. I., Trinh, K., Wasi, P., Rosenfeld, J., & Norman, G. R. (2009) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03407.x · Cited by 267
The Etiology of Diagnostic Errors: A Controlled Trial of System 1 Versus System 2 Reasoning
Norman, G., Sherbino, J., Dore, K., Wood, T., Young, M., Gaissmaier, W., Kreuger, S., & Monteiro, S. (2014) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000000105 · Cited by 174
Eva, K. W., Reiter, H. I., Rosenfeld, J., Trinh, K., Wood, T. J., & Norman, G. R. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.36914 · Cited by 130
Norman, G. R., Wenghofer, E., & Klass, D. (2008) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03131.x · Cited by 40
Self-citationThe impact of large scale licensing examinations in highly developed countries: a systematic review
Archer, J., Lynn, N., Coombes, L., Roberts, M., Gale, T., Price, T., & Regan de Bere, S. (2016) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0729-7 · Cited by 42
Norcini, J., Grabovsky, I., Barone, M. A., Anderson, M. B., Pandian, R. S., & Mechaber, A. J. (2024) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005480 · Cited by 40
Dauphinee, W. D., & Reznick, R. (2011) · Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · doi:10.1097/sih.0b013e31820695e8 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Tamblyn, R., Abrahamowicz, M., Dauphinee, D., Wenghofer, E., Jacques, A., Klass, D., Smee, S., Blackmore, D., Winslade, N., Girard, N., Du Berger, R., Bartman, I., Buckeridge, D. L., & Hanley, J. A.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2007-09-05
- Volume
- 298
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 993
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2040580874
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.