Comparison of self, physician, and simulated patient ratings of pharmacist performance in a family practice simulator Academic Article uri icon

  •  
  • Overview
  •  
  • Research
  •  
  • Identity
  •  
  • Additional Document Info
  •  
  • View All
  •  

abstract

  • The Family Practice Simulator (FPS) was piloted as a teaching, learning, and assessment opportunity for pharmacists making the transition into primary care practice. During this one-day simulation of a typical day in a family physician's office, nine pharmacists rotated through a series of 13 OSCE stations where they interacted with physicians, patients, nurses and office staff while completing primary care activities and receiving performance evaluations. Pharmacists' performance ratings from self, physician, and standardized patient evaluations were compared using Global Rating Scales (GRS) scores and station-specific key points checklists. The mean (SD) overall GRS scores obtained by pharmacists across all stations in the FPS were 4.56 (SD = 0.60) from standardized patients, 3.95 (SD = 0.63) from physicians, and 3.60 (SD = 0.63) from self-assessment (out of a maximum score of 5). Agreement between pharmacists' and patients' GRS ratings ranged from moderate to good (generalizability coefficient (G) = 0.45 to 0.72) for all except one station. Agreement in GRS scores between pharmacists and physicians was at most fair for every station (G = 0.02 - 0.26). There was fair agreement on key points scores between pharmacists and patients (weighted kappa = 27%; 95% CI 7%, 47%) and moderate agreement between pharmacists and physicians (weighted kappa = 45%; 95% CI 21%, 70%). Although there was at best moderate agreement in rating scores between pharmacists, standardized patients, and physicians, the FPS provided an important opportunity to measure expectations regarding the professional role, responsibilities, and performance of pharmacists from a multi-professional perspective, thus better preparing pharmacists for integration into primary care practice. Differences in agreement may have been due to different preconceptions and expectations among raters.

publication date

  • January 2007