ContextPatient‐centred communication is a key component of patient centredness in medical care. Therefore, adequate education in and assessment of patient‐centred communication skills are necessary. In general, feedback on communication skills is most effective when it is provided directly and is systematic. This calls for adequate measurement instruments.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to provide a systematic review of existing instruments that measure patient centredness in doctor–patient communication and can be used to provide direct feedback.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using an extensive validated search strategy for measurement instruments in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The databases were searched from their inception to 1 July 2016. Articles describing the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of instruments that measure patient centredness (by applying three or more of the six dimensions of a published definition of patient centredness) in doctor–patient communication and that can be used for the provision of direct feedback were included. The methodological quality of measurement properties was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist.ResultsThirteen articles describing 14 instruments measuring patient centredness in doctor–patient communication were identified. These studies cover a wide range of settings and patient populations, and vary in the dimensions of patient centredness applied and in methodological quality on aspects of reliability and validity.ConclusionsThis review gives a comprehensive overview of all instruments available for the measurement of patient centredness in doctor–patient communication that can be used for the provision of direct feedback and are described in the literature. Despite the widely felt need for valid and reliable instruments for the measurement of patient‐centred communication, most of the instruments currently available have not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, we recommend further research into and enhancement of existing instruments in terms of validity and reliability, along with enhancement of their generalisability, responsiveness and aspects of interpretability in different contexts (real patients, simulated patients, doctors in different specialties, etc.). Comprehensibility and feasibility should also be taken into account.

We recommend: (a) longitudinal programmes with experiential skills-training sessions and clinical practice, (b) to involve simulated patients, physicians and psychologists in training programmes as well as practising physicians who supervise students during clinical work and (c) to ensure ongoing support and feedback in the clinical phase.

Feedback is a key factor in acquiring breaking bad news (BBN) communication skills and its' acceptance depends on the perceived credibility of the provider. Our aim was to investigate students' opinions on the provided feedback by different educators (surgeons, psychologists, and simulated patient (SP)) during BBN skills training. We developed a questionnaire investigating provided feedback by the surgeon, psychologist, and SP (yes or no statements), regarding (1) perceived safety of the atmosphere, (2) perceived positive feedback, (3) perceived specific feedback, and (4) perceived usefulness for improvement during BBN skills training. Five hundred twenty students returned the questionnaire after BBN skills training. Most students rated the feedback as positive, specific, and useful. Also, the atmosphere was considered safe. Feedback ratings of the SP were the same as for the surgeon and valued higher than for the psychologist. An unsafe atmosphere, or not receiving positive, specific, or useful feedback was mostly related to the psychologist's feedback. Feedback on BBN skills training by surgeons and SPs is rated equally helpful by students and is regarded specific, useful, and positive. When designing a BBN training, it is worth to consider involving SP's as well as clinicians.

No abstract