Communication Skills in Postgraduate to Established Practice
Communication Skills in Postgraduate to Established Practice
A systematic review of the literature was conducted by two independent reviewers (AEG and MCM) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive review of the following electronic databases was undertaken—PubMed/CINAHL/ERIC/EMBASE/PsycInfo/Psyc Articles/Cochrane—using the search terms 'communication skills assessment', 'postgraduate', 'surgery', 'medicine' and all related derivations.
All studies published in the English language, from January 1990 to 15 August 2014, were included. Studies required involvement of medical practitioners, physicians or surgeons within 2 years of completion of a primary postgraduate training programme or established practising consultants.
Studies in which the participants were more than 2 years from completion of postgraduate training (early within the training scheme) were excluded. It was recognised that programmes within different training schemes have different end points (eg, family medicine programmes can be 2–3 years in length, surgical programmes can extend from 5 to 8 years (or more) depending upon specialty and training scheme). Care was taken to include all articles that may fit inclusion criteria. Ambiguity on the postgraduate level was erred on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. No exclusion criteria were placed on assessment methods; any form of communication and method of evaluation could be included.
Each paper was assessed for inclusion/exclusion criteria and for quality of methodology by two independent reviewers (AEG and MCM) using the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guide. A third reviewer (PFR) arbitrated for any disputes. Each article was assessed and graded for research design, clarity of aims and use of a control group. The use of objective evaluation methods and self-assessment tools was noted, specifically the rigour of testing preceding the use of these tools. For example, tools that have been validated and published with appropriate reliability evaluation were rated higher than author-developed questionnaires, without accompanying validation. Articles that relied solely on self-evaluation of participants' confidence in ability scored lower than studies that used objective evaluation with validated tools.
Methods
Search Strategy
A systematic review of the literature was conducted by two independent reviewers (AEG and MCM) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive review of the following electronic databases was undertaken—PubMed/CINAHL/ERIC/EMBASE/PsycInfo/Psyc Articles/Cochrane—using the search terms 'communication skills assessment', 'postgraduate', 'surgery', 'medicine' and all related derivations.
Inclusion Criteria
All studies published in the English language, from January 1990 to 15 August 2014, were included. Studies required involvement of medical practitioners, physicians or surgeons within 2 years of completion of a primary postgraduate training programme or established practising consultants.
Exclusion Criteria
Studies in which the participants were more than 2 years from completion of postgraduate training (early within the training scheme) were excluded. It was recognised that programmes within different training schemes have different end points (eg, family medicine programmes can be 2–3 years in length, surgical programmes can extend from 5 to 8 years (or more) depending upon specialty and training scheme). Care was taken to include all articles that may fit inclusion criteria. Ambiguity on the postgraduate level was erred on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. No exclusion criteria were placed on assessment methods; any form of communication and method of evaluation could be included.
Criteria for Assessing the Quality of Studies
Each paper was assessed for inclusion/exclusion criteria and for quality of methodology by two independent reviewers (AEG and MCM) using the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) guide. A third reviewer (PFR) arbitrated for any disputes. Each article was assessed and graded for research design, clarity of aims and use of a control group. The use of objective evaluation methods and self-assessment tools was noted, specifically the rigour of testing preceding the use of these tools. For example, tools that have been validated and published with appropriate reliability evaluation were rated higher than author-developed questionnaires, without accompanying validation. Articles that relied solely on self-evaluation of participants' confidence in ability scored lower than studies that used objective evaluation with validated tools.
