Implementation, results and face validity of the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure in a Canadian department of surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure, a validated questionnaire designed to assess patients' perceptions of their physician's communication skills and empathy, has been used to assess empathy in medical specialties but has seldom been applied to surgery. We assessed empathy and communication skills among a group of surgeons within a single academic institution. METHODS: All surgeons within our department of surgery were invited to participate. Patients seen in clinics of participating surgeons were recruited prospectively from July 2018 to February 2019. At the end of each clinical encounter, they were asked to complete a CARE survey. Surveys were analyzed according to previously validated inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated mean scores for each surgeon and surgical division. About 6 months after study completion, surgeons were provided with their individual score and de-identified division scores, and were asked to complete a follow-up survey assessing their attitudes toward the CARE Measure. RESULTS: Of the 82 surgeons invited, 51 (62%) agreed to participate; 7 had fewer than 25 completed surveys and were excluded from analysis. A total of 1801 surveys for 44 surgeons (33 male and 11 female) were included in the final analysis. The average CARE score across the department was 46.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6-47.1). Female surgeons received significantly higher scores than male surgeons (mean 47.6 [95% CI 47.1-48.0] v. 46.7 [95% CI 46.4-48.0]). Of the 35 surgeons who responded to the follow-up survey, 31 (89%) felt that the questions in the CARE Measure applied to their practice, and half of these reported that they intended to make changes in response to the feedback. CONCLUSION: We found high communication and empathy scores among surgeons in the outpatient setting, with enough variability to encourage continued improvement. The CARE Measure appears to have face validity among surgeons, and the vast majority found it relevant to their practice. Further study is needed to formally assess the relevance, performance, reliability and construct validity of this measure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".