Skip to main content
Log in

The use of nurses to evaluate houseofficers’ humanistic behavior

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives:1) To determine whether nurse evaluations of humanistic behavior discriminate between houseofficers in an internal medicine training program, and 2) to compare nurse and attending physician evaluations.

Design:Prospective, six-month comparison of nurse and attending ratings of houseofficer humanistic behavior.

Procedure:Using a six-item, Likert-scale bumanistic behavior rating form, nurses and ward attendings evaluated 76 PGY-1, PGY-2, and PGY-3 houseofficers over a six-month period. Nurses and attendings voluntarily evaluated houseofficers on all inpatient units in both university and Veterans Administration teaching hospitals.

Measurements and main results:Nurse ratings discriminated residents from one another throughout the six months of the study and over all units in both hospitals. Attending physician ratings were only moderately correlated with nurses’ and were significantly more lenient. Exploratory analyses of the nursing evaluations revealed that female houseofficers received significantly more favorable evaluations than did men and that ward nurses were significantly more lenient than were critical care nurses. Nurse ratings did not differ by hospital, training year, or month of evaluation.

Conclusions:Nurses can provide information about humanistic behavior that will allow program directors to discriminate among different levels of houseofficer behavior. Information from nurses differs from that provided by attending physicians. Nurse ratings are affected by gender and by the type of unit from which they are obtained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. German PS. Compliance and chronic disease. Hypertension. 1988;11(suppl 2):II56-II60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker MH. Patient adherence to prescribed therapies. Med Care. 1985;23:539–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hall JA, Roter DL, Katz NR. Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters. Med Care. 1988;26:657–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Comstock LM, Hooper EM, Goodwin JM, Goodwin JS. Physician behaviors that correlate with patient satisfaction. J Med Educ. 1982;57:105–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. A guide to awareness and evaluation of humanistic qualities in the internist. Portland, OR: American Board of Internal Medicine, 1985.

  6. Mattern WD, Weinholtz D, Friedman CP. The attending physician as teacher. N Engl J Med. 1983;308:1129–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Shatney CH, Friend BE. Potential role of nurses in assessing houseofficer performance in the critical care environment. Crit Care Med. 1984;12:117–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Butterfield PS, Mazzaferri EL, Sachs LA. Nurses as evaluators of humanistic behavior of internal medicine residents. J Med Educ. 1987;62:842–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Blurton RR, Mazzaferri EL. Assessment of interpersonal skills and humanistic qualities in medical residents. J Med Educ. 1985;60:648–50.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Linn LS, Oye RK, Cope DW, DiMatteo MR. Use of nonphysician staff to evaluate humanistic behavior of internal medicine residents and faculty members. J Med Educ. 1986;61:918–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Siegel S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wilkinson L. SYSTAT: the System for Statistics. Evanston, IL: Systat, Inc., 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dickenson GE, Pearson AA. Sex differences of physicians in relating to dying patients. J Am Med Wom Assoc. 1979;34:45–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wasserman RC, Inui TS, Barriatua RD, Carter WB, Lippincott P. Responsiveness to maternal concern in preventative child health visits: an analysis of clinician-parent interactions. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1983;4:171–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Day SC, Norcini JJ, Shea JA, Benson JA. Gender differences in the clinical competence of residents in internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:309–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Arnold RM, Martin SC, Parker RM. Taking care of patients—does it matter whether the physician is a woman? In: Women and medicine [special issue]. West J Med. 1988;149:729–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Evans BJ, Coman GJ, Stanley RO. Scores on the profile of nonverbal sensitivity: a sample of Australian medical students. Psychol Rep. 1988;62:903–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Zambrana RE, Mogel W, Scrimshaw SCM. Gender and level of training differences in obstetricians’ attitudes towards patients in childbirth. Women Health. 1987;12:5–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmitt BP, Rezler A, Micari H. Assessing humanistic qualities in medical residents. 25th Annual Conference on Research in Medical Education, New Orleans, 1986.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received from the Department of General Medicine and Primary Care, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. At the time of this study Dr. Kaplan was with the University of Kentucky Department of Internal Medicine and Lexington Veterans Administration Hospital, Lexington, Kentucky.

Supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaplan, C.B., Centor, R.M. The use of nurses to evaluate houseofficers’ humanistic behavior. J Gen Intern Med 5, 410–414 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599428

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599428

Key words

Navigation