A student's medical interview in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) may be assessed slightly differently by simulated patients and by the faculty. In this study, we compared three different scores given by the faculty or simulated patients in the assessment of OSCE medical interviews conducted at our department for 3 years. Scores compared were the total score and the behavior score given by the faculty and the score given by simulated patients. The total score and the behavior score given by the faculty correlated well with the score given by simulated patients. However, for students who received a poor assessment from simulated patients, the three scores were weakly correlated; in particular, the behavior score given by the faculty differed markedly from the score given by simulated patients. These results suggest that simulated patients have a different and important viewpoint on assessment of the medical interview in an OSCE.

BACKGROUND: Medical students need interviewing skills to be effective in dealing with patients. However, it is presumed that there are some problems in evaluating the competencies medical students are required to have for practicing medicine.
OBJECTIVE: During Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) in Japan, instructors usually evaluate examinee's behavior and attitude toward doing medical interviews. To improve the objectivity of these examinations we examined the assessment of our OSCE medical interview.
METHODS: Medical interviews are usually evaluated using a rating list. The standardized list used in most medical schools is composed of two parts: one scores the student's behavior while conducting the interview and the other evaluates the student's ability to gather information from patients. For 5^thyear student OSCE medical interviews are performed twice, before and after ward rotation. The results of two OSCEs were analyzed in terms of scores on conducting an interview, collecting patient information, and SP, or simulated patient. Data analysis of the students' behavior and attitude were taken over 3 years, from 2000 to 2002.
RESULTS: Total scores and scores on conducting interviews, collecting information, and SP's evaluation all increased when comparisons were made between before and after ward rotation. However, only the differences in the total score and SPs score in 2000 were statistically significant. Moreover, clinical skills for collecting patients' information were found to be unsatisfactory.
CONCLUSIONS: As the standardized OSCE medical interviews are performed at all medical schools in Japan today, further improvements in education and in the evaluation system will be required in the future to ensure students obtain the skills expected of them for practicing medicine.

Fifth-year medical students at the Yamaguchi University School of Medicine must pass an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) before beginning bedside learning. Because the OSCE is performed over 3 days, examinees on later days are suspected of having an advantage over those tested on early days. In this study, mean values for each day's scores by one examiner were statistically compared in stations of the medical interview to investigate the difference in scores obtained on each of the OSCE days. In addition, for stations at which one student was evaluated by two examiners, their scores for each student were compared statistically in the same manner. We found no significant day-todaydifferences in mean values of the scores over the 3 examination days. However, significant differences were found between the two examiners' scores in 2 of 3 stations for the medical interview. Although there were no differences in scores among participants during the 3-day communication OSCE, examiner's evaluations and formats should be standardized for OSCE stations.

This study examined the effectiveness of a communication program in undergraduate medical education in improving communication in physicians' clinical practice. The effectiveness of the program was assessed with a mail survey using self-rated questionnaires 9 years later. Ninety participants were follwed up in late 1994; 57.8% of them replied to the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 60% replied that programs concerned with active listening and role-playing had benefits on communicating with patients and families. In addition, 40% of respondents answered that case studies aimed at teaching comprehensive medicine with the team approach was effective in improving communication with co-medical staff. These results suggest that the communication program in undergraduate medical education is effective in improving clinical communication in clinical practice when students are highly motivated.