Development of a Patient-Doctor Communication Skills Model for Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Communication is a core clinical skill that can be taught and learned. The authors intended to develop a patient-doctor communication model for teaching and assessing undergraduate medical students in Korea. METHODS: To develop a model, literature reviews and an iterative process of discussion between faculty members of a communication skills course for second year medical students were conducted. The authors extracted common communication skill competencies by comparing the Kalamazoo Consensus Statement, SEGUE framework communication skills, the Calgary Cambridge Observation Guides, and previous communication skills lists that have been used by the authors. The content validity, with regard to clinical importance and feasibility, was surveyed by both faculty physicians and students. RESULTS: The first version of the model consisted of 36 items under 7 categories: initiating the session (8 items), building a relationship (6), gathering information (8), understanding a patient's perspectives (4), sharing information (4), reaching an agreement (3), and closing the session (3). It was used as a guide for both students and teachers in an actual communication skills course. At the end of the course, student performance was assessed using two 7-minute standardized patient interviews with a 34-item checklist. This assessment tool was modified from the first version of the model to reflect the case specificity of the scenarios. A patient-doctor communication model, which can be taught to those with limited patient care experience, was finally developed. CONCLUSION: We recommended a patient-doctor communication skills model that can be used for teaching and evaluating preclinical and clinical students. Further studies are needed to verify its validity and reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".