Aims In recent years, patient satisfaction has been integrated into residency training practices through core competency requirements as set forth by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). In 2006, the UCLA Health Systems established a program designed to obtain patient feedback and assess the communication abilities of resident physicians with a standard tool through the Assessing Residents' C-I-CARE (ARC) Program.
Methods This Program utilized a 17-item questionnaire, completed via a facilitator-administered interview, which employed polar, Likert and comment scale questions to assess physician trainees' interpersonal and communication skills.
Results From 2006 to 2010, the ARC Program provided patient feedback data to more than six clinical departments while collecting 5,634 surveys for 323 trainees. Scores for resident recognition and performance increased from the first to second year of activity by an average of 22.5%, while attending recognition scores decreased 19% over the four years. Additionally, residents and attendings in surgical specialties received higher recognition rates than those in non-surgical specialties.
Conclusions The ARC Program provided a standard tool for attaining patient feedback through a facilitator-administered survey that assisted in the accreditation process of training programs. Furthermore, hospitals, health organizations and medical schools may find the ARC Program valuable in collecting information for quality control as well as providing an opportunity for students to become involved in the healthcare field.
- Quality improvement
- patient satisfaction
- resident performance
- patient-centred care
- continuous quality improvement
- quality improvement methodologies
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
TW and BH contributed equally to this manuscript.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the UCLA IRB.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.