Working experience is not a predictor of good communication: Results from a controlled trial with simulated patients

Working experience is not a predictor of good communication: Results from a controlled trial with simulated patients

Introduction The importance of good communication in dentistry is proven in terms of both medical satisfaction and patient‐related recovery and prevention. The present work deals with the comparison of communicative abilities and the communicative self‐assessment of licensed dentists as well as stud...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of dental education Vol. 24; no. 2; pp. 177 - 185
Main Authors: Kruse, Anne B., Heil, Helge Klaus‐Peter, Struß, Norbert, Fabry, Götz, Silbernagel, Waltraud, Vach, Kirstin, Ratka‐Krüger, Petra, Woelber, Johan P.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-05-2020
Subjects:
Clinical Competence
Communication
dental students
Dentistry
Dentists
Education, Dental
Emotions
Empathy
Humans
medical training
Patients
physician‐patient relationship
Students
Students, Medical
Verbal communication
work experience
medical training
empathy
dental students
communication
physician-patient relationship
work experience
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction The importance of good communication in dentistry is proven in terms of both medical satisfaction and patient‐related recovery and prevention. The present work deals with the comparison of communicative abilities and the communicative self‐assessment of licensed dentists as well as students of dentistry with special emphasis on the influence of the treatment experience. Materials and Methods A total of 34 dentists (experimental group) with an average work experience of 16 years and 36 students (control group) with an average of 1.4 years of treatment experience were included. In addition to a tutor, four types of simulation patients with standardised trained roles (anxious, critical, dissatisfied and difficult to motivate) were used to create reproducible conversations. The self‐assessment and evaluation of the conversation took place by completing questionnaires. Here, an introductory questionnaire was distributed to the participants prior to the conversation and another one after intervention. Whilst the tutors completed their survey during the intervention, the simulation patients answered their questions after the conversation. Results The results showed that the dentists rated their own communication skills significantly higher than the students for anxious (P < 0.001) and unmotivated patients (P = 0.026). However, the evaluation of the simulated patients showed that the students achieved higher overall empathy scores (42.03 vs 38.77, P = 0.016). Conclusion Due to the declining empathy values with increasing treatment experience, communication training is useful for the daily routine of treatment even for experienced dentists.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1396-5883
1600-0579
DOI:10.1111/eje.12482