Presentation Description
Conor Gilligan1
Maria Magdalena Bujnowska-Fedak2, Guert Essers3, Wiebke Frerichs4, Desirée Joosten-ten Brinke5, Ragnar Martin Joakimsen6, Noelle Junod Perron7, Claudia Kiessling8, Peter Pype9, Zoi Tsimtsiou10, Marc Van Nuland11, Tim Wilkinson12 and Marcy Rosenbaum13
1 EACH
2 Wroclaw Medical University
3 National Network for GP training programs in the Netherlands
4 University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Department of Medical Psychology 5 Maastricht University, Department Educational Development and Research and the School of Health Professions Education
6 University Hospital of North Norway/The Arctic University of Norway – University of Tromso
7 Geneva University Hospitals and Geneva Faculty of medicine
8 Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany
9 Department of Public Health and Primary Care Ghent University
10 Department of Hygiene, Social - Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
11 KU Leuven – University of Leuven. Department of Public Health and Primary Care
12 University of Otago
13 EACH: International Assocation for Communication in Healthcare
Maria Magdalena Bujnowska-Fedak2, Guert Essers3, Wiebke Frerichs4, Desirée Joosten-ten Brinke5, Ragnar Martin Joakimsen6, Noelle Junod Perron7, Claudia Kiessling8, Peter Pype9, Zoi Tsimtsiou10, Marc Van Nuland11, Tim Wilkinson12 and Marcy Rosenbaum13
1 EACH
2 Wroclaw Medical University
3 National Network for GP training programs in the Netherlands
4 University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Department of Medical Psychology 5 Maastricht University, Department Educational Development and Research and the School of Health Professions Education
6 University Hospital of North Norway/The Arctic University of Norway – University of Tromso
7 Geneva University Hospitals and Geneva Faculty of medicine
8 Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany
9 Department of Public Health and Primary Care Ghent University
10 Department of Hygiene, Social - Preventive Medicine and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
11 KU Leuven – University of Leuven. Department of Public Health and Primary Care
12 University of Otago
13 EACH: International Assocation for Communication in Healthcare
Background
In recent decades, the importance of the communication skills of health professionals has been increasingly recognised, and training in these skills is now included in curricula and accreditation standards across health fields, and across the continuum of training from pre- registration to CPD. The assessment of these skills is, however, far less developed, with challenges faced in the integration of communication components into various forms of assessment, the standardisation of assessors, and the varied expectations for communication in different clinical contexts. Previous publications (1, 2) have presented guiding principles for the assessment of communication skills. Since these publications, expectations from the public and the health professions have evolved, with much change occurring in both the healthcare communication, and the assessment fields. For example, emerging technologies, resource pressures, and increasing cultural diversity affect both clinical and education fields. Shifts in assessment systems towards a programmatic structure, in which teaching and assessment are more intertwined, and increasing reliance on workplace-based assessments pose both challenges and opportunities for the teaching and assessment of the complex range of skills involved with communication.
We have brought together a group of experts in the fields of healthcare communication and assessment to establish a consensus relating to these contemporary and future challenges and opportunities, and to provide some suggested solutions for how they might be addressed through curricula and assessment optimisation. This workshop will present the key concepts being considered in our consensus, and seek feedback from the group as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the consensus statement. We will challenge participants to critique our draft, identify priorities and gaps, and consider the practical application of our proposed strategies.
Workshop format
10 minutes – brief introduction of the consensus reached by the group to date (which will be pre-circulated to participants)
3 x 20 minutes – tasks in small groups. We will pose questions for discussion and activity in small groups which will each be facilitated by one of the authors.
15 minutes – feedback from small group tasks (5 minutes per task) 5 minutes – closing and summary of next steps
Who should participate?
Who should participate?
Participants will be those with practical experience and expertise in the teaching and/or assessment of communication skills specifically, or those involved in other forms of assessment who are interested in more explicitly addressing communication skills. We welcome those involved in both undergraduate health professional training as well as in continuing professional development and quality improvement among practicing clinicians.
The workshop is open to intermediate and advanced practitioners (educators/assessors/clinicians of various healthcare fields, e.g., nursing professionals, physical therapists)
Take home messages
The workshop will contribute to the finalisation of the consensus statement document in preparation for submission. Workshop participants will be acknowledged for their contribution in the publication.
References (maximum three)
1. Kiessling C, Tsimtsiou Z, Essers G, et al. General principles to consider when designing a clinical communication assessment program. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(9):1762-8.
2. Laidlaw A, Hart J. Communication skills: an essential component of medical curricula. Part I: Assessment of clinical communication: AMEE Guide No. 51. Med Teach. 2011;33(1):6- 8.