A gradual shift towards a more humanistic conception of medicine has occurred in recent years. Along with this shift have come attempts by medical educators to include interviewing and communication skills as part of the medical curriculum. The current study evaluates the effectiveness of a clinical medicine curriculum which emphasizes interviewing skills. Between 1992 and 1994 and 292 graduates of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine participated in five clinical skills teaching and assessment programmes during the four years of medical school. During each of these five programmes, the students' interviewing skills were rated using the Arizona Clinical Interview Rating Scale (ACIR). The raters were standardized patients with whom they had just completed a medical encounter. Results show that students' development of skills differed, with closure items showing the greatest increase and social history items showing the greatest decline, with an overall initial increase and then a decline in interviewing skills over the four years. Explanations for these findings include the de-emphasis of communication skills during the clinical years and the culture of medicine to which students are exposed during these years.

Current techniques do not provide a reproducible, reliable, or valid basis for assessing clinical skills. The need for large-scale direct observation and standardized assessment procedures has precluded development of better techniques. A project using standardized patients presenting with common clinical problems evaluated the skills of 336 internal medicine residents at 14 New England residency programs in 1289 standardized patient and resident encounters. Results indicated that reproducible assessment of the clinical skills could be achieved in approximately 1 day of testing time using standardized patients. Resident performance improved with years of training, and senior residents and those from programs with stronger reputations performed better and were more homogeneous in ability. Low correlations between standardized-patient-based measures of clinical skills and other evaluation techniques suggested that standardized patients provided unique information. Reactions of residents and faculty to standardized-patient-based evaluations were favorable.

This paper describes a collaborative effort among five New England medical schools to assess important clinical skills of fourth-year medical students graduating in the class of 1988; results are presented from the four schools that provided sufficient data. Faculty from each school developed 36 patient cases representing a variety of common ambulatory-care problems. Over the course of a day, each student, on average, interacted with 16 different standardized patients, who were nonphysicians trained to accurately and consistently portray a patient in a simulated clinical setting. The students obtained focused histories, performed relevant physical examinations, and provided the patients with education and counseling. At each school, the performance of a small number of the students fell below standards set by the faculty. These deficiencies were not detected with the evaluation strategies currently being used. Although the use of standardized patients should not substitute for the process of faculty observing students as they interact with real patients, it appears that standardized patients can provide faculty with important information, not readily available from other sources, about students' performances of essential clinical activities and the levels of their clinical skills.

In order to identify and explain those aspects of clinical performance related to moral reasoning, 39 family medicine residents were studied as they interacted with each of two simulated patients. Residents were interviewed to assess their performance with each patient, elicit their general philosophy of being a doctor, and measure their moral reasoning. General performance as residents was rated by three faculty supervisors. Scoringprotocols were developedfor each measure to ensure objectivity. Factor analysis of each measure guided selection of the most meaningful variablefrom each instrument. Based upon general models relating attitude to behavior, structural equations were used to explicate the relationship between moral reasoning, performance on the simulated cases, performance as a resident, attitude, and intention. Chi-square goodness offit indicates that the general attitude-behavior models adequatelyfit the data. These models would suggest that moral reasoning and physician attitudes have more of an influence on behavior than physician intentions.

No abstract