Identification of communication apprehension in medical students starting a surgery rotation.

BACKGROUND: Most methods used to critically evaluate young surgeons for advancement or certification in surgery require oral communication skills, eg, case and research presentations, rounds, morbidity and mortality conferences, interviews, journal clubs and oral examinations. The irony, though, is that much of surgery training focuses on technical skill lists, and the rhetorical aspects are often neglected until the surgeon encounters failure in an oral examination or is sued for not "talking" appropriately. Early identification of those at risk for difficulty with oral skills would provide programs with time needed to arrange for the appropriate types of interventions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify those medical students with high communication apprehension scores in dyadic, group, or public speaking situations before they encountered failure and caused problems, not only for themselves, but also for their programs and practices. METHODS: Two scales, Willingness to Communicate (WTC) and the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24), were administered to medical students at two large university medical centers during new student orientation to the surgery rotation. The WTC is a 20-item probability-estimate scale designed to measure one's predisposition toward approaching or avoiding the initiation of communication. The PRCA-24 is a scale designed to measure one's fear associated with either real or anticipated communication in four different contexts. In addition to the 44 items, a lengthy list of demographic items was added for possible correlations. These items were based on the student's perception of the communication or language environment in which he was raised. Therefore, a student ranked past and future socioeconomic status (eg, blue collar or white collar) according to his or her own criteria. The chairman was provided with a list of individual scores. Those students who were below the group means on skills required during a surgery rotation were identified for immediate intervention. RESULTS: The published data show a norm mean of 65.6 for PRCA-24 and 65.2 for WTC for college students. The current study found medical students to be more willing to communicate (WTC) and less anxious about communication (PRCA-24) than college students (mean 70.7 versus 65.2, P = 0.003, and 61.6 versus 65.6, P = 0.01, respectively). This difference was accentuated for blue-collar medical students compared with college students and persisted when blue-collar medical students were compared with white-collar medical students (73.9 blue-collar versus 70.9 college students, P = 0.15 for WTC, and 58.5 blue-collar versus 63.6 white-collar, P = 0.002 for PRCA-24). Male medical students were found to be less anxious about communication than female medical students. CONCLUSIONS: These instruments are easily administered at orientation and produce simple class lists with individual scores. They can be used to identify students who are below the mean for specific forms of communication before they encounter failure.

Communication effectiveness training improves surgical resident teaching ability.

BACKGROUND: An important educational objective of academic surgical programs is to train surgical teachers. Whether formal instruction of surgery residents in general principles of teaching has a role in the achievement of this objective is unproven. STUDY DESIGN: We tested whether the teaching ability of surgery residents could be improved by two different interventions: (A) a lecture on communication effectiveness plus home study of their own videotaped lectures and (B) a critical review of their own videotaped lectures with a teaching consultant. Each resident taught four sessions. There was no intervention between sessions 1 and 2; intervention A occurred between sessions 2 and 3; and intervention B, between sessions 3 and 4. Each of the four videotaped sessions was graded for communication effectiveness using a standardized scoring form. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between scores from lectures 1 and 2 (no intervention) or lectures 2 and 3 (intervention A). Intervention B (individualized feedback) resulted in significant improvement in all scores from session 4 compared with sessions 1 and 2: content 3.40 versus 2.98 (p = 0.01), language 3.43 versus 3.22 (p = 0.03), delivery 3.25 versus 2.87 (p = 0.002), and overall 3.43 versus 2.88 (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resident teaching ability can be improved by communication effectiveness teaching. Individualized feedback is more effective than a lecture combined with self-study.

A surgery oral examination: interrater agreement and the influence of rater characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Poor interrater reliability is a common objection to the use of oral examinations. METHOD: In 1990 the authors measured the agreement of 140 U.S. and Canadian surgical raters and the influences, if any, of age, years in practice, and experience as an examiner on individual oral examination scores. Eight actor examinees memorized transcripts of actual oral examinations and were videotaped using a single examiner. Examinee verbal style, dress, content of answers, and gender were purposefully adjusted. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Three aspects of examinee performance influenced scores (verbal style, dress, and content of answers). No rater characteristic significantly affected scores. Raters showed high agreement (86%) when rating "good" performances but less agreement (67%) when rating "poor" performances. CONCLUSION: The oral examination scores were not influenced by rater selection. The raters ranked good performances more consistently than poor performances. Therefore, more than one examiner appears necessary to confirm a poor performance during an examination.

Influence of effective communication by surgery students on their oral examination scores.

This study investigated the influences of specific elements of surgery students' verbal and nonverbal communication on evaluators' "objective" ratings of several categories of the students' performances on oral examinations. Three actors and two actresses, dressed as surgery students in a wide range of attire, were videotaped as they reenacted five transcripts of actual students' responses in their oral examinations. For each examination, the actors portrayed the students' responses to the same examining surgeon in two formats, one using direct eye contact with a moderate response rate (Style A) and the other using indirect eye contact with a slower response rate (Style B). All transcripts were taped at least twice. The resulting 255 videotaped "examinations" were randomly distributed in 1988 to 78 clinical surgery faculty representing 46 institutions throughout the United States and Canada. These faculty viewed the reenactments (under the impression they were actual examinations) and rated the "students" performances overall and in ten categories concerning different aspects of the students' knowledge, clinical decision-making skills, and personal characteristics. The performances done in Style A were rated significantly higher than those done in Style B (1) in every performance category except decision making and (2) when the scores were classified by the content of the responses and how professionally dressed the students were. There were also a significant relationship between scores on communication skills and the overall all scores on examinations. These findings suggest that regardless of the content of a student's responses on an oral examination, evaluators are strongly influenced by how well the student communicates.

Verbal communication skills and patient satisfaction. A study of doctor-patient interviews.

This research attempted to quantify specific behaviors in the physician's initial interviewing style and relate them to patients' perception of satisfaction. Five physicians were tape recorded during their initial interviews with 52 adult patients. The patients were asked to complete the Medical Interview Satisfaction Scale, a 29-item instrument with a 7-point response scale. These interviews were transcribed, timed, coded, and analyzed with the use of the Computerized Language Analysis System. Selected variables of the language dimensions were entered as the predictor variables in a multiple regression, along with satisfaction scores as the dependent variables. Twenty-seven percent of the variance (p less than .01) in the satisfaction scores of initial interviews were explained by three aspects of a physician's language style: (a) use of silence or reaction time latency between speakers in an interview, (b) whether there was language reciprocity as determined through the reciprocal use of word-lists, and (c) the reflective use of interruptions within an interview. Considering the complexity of human communication, the fact that three variables were identified, which accounted for 27% of the variance in patients' satisfaction, is considered a substantial finding.

A new method of assessing the interpersonal skills of surgeons.

The purpose of this study was to develop a behavioral approach for assessing interpersonal skills of surgeons. Ten Brown University surgery faculty were videotaped (July 87-June 88) in an outpatient setting with an actress portraying a patient with gallbladder disease. Each surgeon's taped behavior was scored at three time intervals by two behavioral scientists using the BUISE method, an interpersonal rating scale for surgeons developed by the authors, and independently scored by a third independent researcher using the Stillman scale. The correlation results demonstrated that the quality of communication competency of these surgeons varied during the three time intervals in which their behavior was evaluated. The Brown University Interpersonal Skill Evaluation (BUISE) instrument was found to be sensitive to the variation of a surgeons' interpersonal skill throughout an entire interview, whereas the Stillman scale correlated with the surgeons' behavior at the end of the interview only.