LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hrisos, Susan; Eccles, Martin P; Francis, Jill J; Dickinson, Heather O; Kaner, Eileen FS; Beyer, Fiona; Johnston, Marie (2009)
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: Implementation Science : IS
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: R5-920, Medicine (General), Systematic Review, RA

Abstract

Background

Accurate measures of health professionals' clinical practice are critically important to guide health policy decisions, as well as for professional self-evaluation and for research-based investigation of clinical practice and process of care. It is often not feasible or ethical to measure behaviour through direct observation, and rigorous behavioural measures are difficult and costly to use. The aim of this review was to identify the current evidence relating to the relationships between proxy measures and direct measures of clinical behaviour. In particular, the accuracy of medical record review, clinician self-reported and patient-reported behaviour was assessed relative to directly observed behaviour.

Methods

We searched: PsycINFO; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; science/social science citation index; Current contents (social & behavioural med/clinical med); ISI conference proceedings; and Index to Theses. Inclusion criteria: empirical, quantitative studies; and examining clinical behaviours. An independent, direct measure of behaviour (by standardised patient, other trained observer or by video/audio recording) was considered the 'gold standard' for comparison. Proxy measures of behaviour included: retrospective self-report; patient-report; or chart-review. All titles, abstracts, and full text articles retrieved by electronic searching were screened for inclusion and abstracted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer where necessary.

Results

Fifteen reports originating from 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The method of direct measurement was by standardised patient in six reports, trained observer in three reports, and audio/video recording in six reports. Multiple proxy measures of behaviour were compared in five of 15 reports. Only four of 15 reports used appropriate statistical methods to compare measures. Some direct measures failed to meet our validity criteria. The accuracy of patient report and chart review as proxy measures varied considerably across a wide range of clinical actions. The evidence for clinician self-report was inconclusive.

Conclusion

Valid measures of clinical behaviour are of fundamental importance to accurately identify gaps in care delivery, improve quality of care, and ultimately to improve patient care. However, the evidence base for three commonly used proxy measures of clinicians' behaviour is very limited. Further research is needed to better establish the methods of development, application, and analysis for a range of both direct and proxy measures of behaviour.

  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. The Information Centre: Quality and Outcomes Framework for GP practices. [http://www.ic.nhs.uk/]. [cited 28.08.2008]
    • 2. Department of Health: New GMS Contract 2003. Investing in general practice. NHS Confederation and the British Medical Association. London; 2003.
    • 3. Eccles MP, Hrisos S, Francis J, Kaner EF, Dickinson HO, Beyer F, Johnston M: Do self-reported intentions predict clinicians' behaviour: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2006, 1:28.
    • 4. Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and use 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
    • 5. Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ, Smith TF, Kelly R, Langa DM, Flocke SA, Jaen CR: How valid are medical records and patient questionnaires for physician profiling and health services research? A comparison with direct observation of patients visits. Medical Care 1998, 36:851-867.
    • 6. Flocke SA, Stange KC: Direct observation and patient recall of health behavior advice. Prev Med 2004, 38:343-349.
    • 7. Wilson A: Comparison of patient questionnaire, medical record, and audio tape in assessment of health promotion in general practice consultations. Source. BMJ 1994, 309:1483-1485.
    • 8. Ward J, Sanson-Fisher R: Accuracy of patient recall of opportunistic smoking cessation advice in general practice. Tobacco Control 1996, 5(2):110-113.
    • 9. Zuckerman ZE, Starfield B, Hochreiter C, Kovasznay B: Validating the content of pediatric outpatient medical records by means of tape-recording doctor-patient encounters. Pediatrics 1975, 56(3):407-411.
    • 10. Luck J, Peabody JW, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M, Glassman P: How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record. American Journal of Medicine 2000, 108(8):642-649.
    • 11. Page GG, Fielding DW: Performance on PMPs and performance in practice: are they related? 1980, 55:529-537.
    • 12. Gerbert B, Stone G, Stulbarg M, Gullion DS, Greenfield S: Agreement among physician assessment methods. Searching for the truth among fallible methods. Medical Care 1988, 26:519-535.
    • 13. Pbert L, Adams A, Quirk M, Herbert JR, Ockene JK, Luippold RS: The patient exit interview as an assessment of physician-delivered smoking intervention: a validation study. Health Psychol 1999, 18:183-188.
    • 14. Gerbert B, Hargreaves WA: Measuring physician behavior. Medical Care 1986, 24:838-847.
    • 15. Dresselhaus TR, Peabody JW, Lee M, Wang MM, Luck J: Measuring compliance with preventive care guidelines: standardized patients, clinical vignettes, and the medical record. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2000, 15(11):782-788.
    • 16. Rethans JJ, van Boven CPA: Simulated patients in general practice: a different look at the consultation. British Medical Journal 1987, 294:809-812.
    • 17. Rethans JJ, Martin E, Metsemakers J: To what extent do clinical notes by general practitioners reflect actual medical performance? A study using simulated patients. British Journal of General Practice 1994, 44(381):153-156.
    • 18. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M: Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA 2000, 283(13):1715-1722.
    • 19. O'Boyle C, Henly S, Larson E: Understanding adherence to hand hygiene recommendations: the theory of planned behavior. Am J Infect Control 2001, 29:352-360.
    • 20. Buellens J, Rethans JJ, Goedhuys J, Buntinx F: The use of standardised patients in research in general practice. Family Practice 1997, 14:58-62.
    • 21. Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Jain S, Hansen J, Spell M: Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004, 141:771-780.
    • 22. Spies T, Mokkink H, De Vries Robbe P, Grol R: Which data source in clinical performance assessment? A pilot study comparing self-recording with patient records and observation. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2004, 16(1):65-72.
    • 23. Jones TV, Gerrity MS, Earp J: Written case simulations: do they predict physicians' behaviour? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1990, 43(8):805-815.
    • 24. Chia KS: Association or Agreement? Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore 2000, 29:263-264.
    • 25. Hripcsak G, Heitjan DF: Measuring agreement in medical informatics reliability studies. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2002, 35(2):99-110.
    • 26. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, (Eds): Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases. Chapter 11 in Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context 2nd edition. London: BMJ books; 2001.
    • 27. Godin G, Belanger-Gravel A, Eccles MP, Grimshaw J: Healthcare professionals' intentions and behaviours: A systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implementation Science 2008, 3(36):.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article