| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
MURAKAMI Fujio Yamaguchi Univ., Univ. Hospital, Associate professor, 医学部附属病院, 助教授 (10253155)
KOBAYAKAWA Setsu Yamaguchi Univ., Univ. Hospital, Research assistant, 医学部附属病院, 助手 (40363105)
|
|---|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,600,000)
Fiscal Year 2006: ¥1,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,000,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥1,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,600,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
At the present, the study for physician performance measurement to assess clinical competence has been started in the western countries. We enumerate the professional activities to implement the plans for assessing the performance of individual physicians.
In the study of 2005, we accomplished the methods of some clinical performance assessment of them, such as abilities of 1) detecting patient's narration of illness, 2) reasonable assessment for diagnosis, 3) clinical planning, 4) clinical reasoning, by written tests using scenarios of simulated cases. On the other hand, in the study of 2006, we tried to make up the methods of other more profound performance assessment of them, such as abilities of 5) communication, 6) emotions and values, 7) approach for patient's psycho-social problems, 8) reflective practice. Then, we assessed these performances by a direct interview method to the patient who visited our university hospital firstly, using a rating scale based on the questionnaire. M
… More
ain questionnaire on this patient's survey was a) did you feel your problems being fully accepted?, b) did you feel politeness and respect to physician in examinations?, c) did you appreciate physician accounts about diagnosis of your sickness and feel reliance?. Actually, clinical performance of doctor A (59 year old, male), a veteran of the general practice, was assessed using this method by the medical student as an interviewer who was trained to ask patient. The 77 patient's evaluations of the clinical performance to doctor A was performed in each 3 questions by rating scales of 3 (very well), 2 (fairly well), 1 (rather poor), 0 (very poor). As a result, the mean score of question a), b) and c) was 2.62, 2.57 and 2.60, respectively. The assessment by the patients to an expert physician performance being excellent, this trial of the
assessment for physician performance was supposed to be as an adequate method.
The physician assessment for the clinical performance and competence on daily clinical practices became possible using both written test of simulated scenario and direct interview to patient about the physician performance based on the questionnaire. Less
|
