Skip to main content

Unannounced Standardized Patient Assessment of the Roter Interaction Analysis System: The Challenge of Measuring Patient-Centered Communication

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Despite wide-spread endorsement of patient-centered communication (PCC) in health care, there has been little evidence that it leads to positive change in health outcomes. The lack of correlation may be due either to an overestimation of the value of PCC or to a measurement problem. If PCC measures do not capture elements of the interaction that determine whether the resulting care plan is patient-centered, they will confound efforts to link PCC to outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether one widely used measure of PCC, the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS), captures patient-centered care planning.

DESIGN

RIAS was employed in the coding of unannounced standardized patient (USP) encounters that were scripted so that the failure to address patient contextual factors would result in an ineffective plan of care. The design enabled an assessment of whether RIAS can differentiate between communication behavior that does and does not result in a care plan that takes into account a patient’s circumstances and needs.

PARTICIPANTS

Eight actors role playing four scripted cases (one African American and one Caucasian for each case) in 399 visits to 111 internal medicine attending physicians.

MAIN MEASURES

RIAS measures included composites for physician utterance types and (in separate models) two different previously applied RIAS patient-centeredness summary composites. The gold standard comparison measure was whether the physician’s treatment plan, as abstracted from the visit note, successfully addressed the patient’s problem. Mixed effects regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between RIAS measures and USP measured performance, controlling for a variety of design features.

KEY RESULTS

None of the RIAS measures of PCC differentiated encounters in which care planning was patient-centered from care planning in which it was not.

CONCLUSIONS

RIAS, which codes each utterance during a visit into mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories, does not differentiate between conversations leading to and not leading to care plans that accommodate patients’ circumstances and needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.

    Epstein RM, Franks P, Fiscella K, et al. Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: theoretical and practical issues. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(7):1516–28.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Mead N, Bower P. Measuring patient-centredness: a comparison of three observation-based instruments. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39(1):71–80.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Smith RC, Dwamena FC, Grover M, Coffey J, Frankel RM. Behaviorally defined patient-centered communication—a narrative review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(2):185–91.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    McCormack LA, Treiman K, Rupert D, et al. Measuring patient-centered communication in cancer care: a literature review and the development of a systematic approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(7):1085–95.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(11):907–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Roter D, Larson S. The Roter interaction analysis system (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;46(4):243–51.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, Lipkin M Jr, Stiles W, Inui TS. Communication patterns of primary care physicians. JAMA. 1997;277(4):350–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    RIASWORKS. http://www.riasworks.com/resources_a.html. (Last accessed Aug 28, 2012).

  10. 10.

    Luck J, Peabody JW. Using standardised patients to measure physicians’ practice: validation study using audio recordings. BMJ. 2002;325(7366):679.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Glassman PA, Luck J, O’Gara EM, Peabody JW. Using standardized patients to measure quality: evidence from the literature and a prospective study. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26(11):644–53.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Weiner SJ, Schwartz A, Weaver F, et al. Contextual errors and failures in individualizing patient care: a multicenter study. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(2):69–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Weiner SJ, Schwartz A, Yudkowsky R, et al. Evaluating physician performance at individualizing care: a pilot study tracking contextual errors in medical decision making. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(6):726–34.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Beach MC, Saha S, Korthuis PT, et al. Differences in patient-provider communication for Hispanic compared to non-Hispanic white patients in HIV care. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(7):682–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Weiner SJ. Contextualizing medical decisions to individualize care: lessons from the qualitative sciences. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(3):281–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

Alan Schwartz and Saul Weiner are owners of a company that provides management consulting services to health care providers and institutions interested in collecting customer service and performance data using methods employed in this study (unannounced standardized patients). They have not to date received consulting fees, honorarium, contracts or other payments. The remaining authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Funding/Support

This study was supported by Veteran Affairs, Health Services Research and Development.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saul J. Weiner MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weiner, S.J., Schwartz, A., Cyrus, K. et al. Unannounced Standardized Patient Assessment of the Roter Interaction Analysis System: The Challenge of Measuring Patient-Centered Communication. J GEN INTERN MED 28, 254–260 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2221-3

Download citation

KEY WORDS

  • patient-centered communication
  • medical decision making
  • performance assessment