Context Four narrative profiles were previously developed as an evidence-informed framework for reflection and feedback on consultation performance in medical education. The profiles are grounded in four typologies mapped onto a conceptual framework, using the dimensions of doctor patient interaction (DPI) and medical expertise (ME) to classify overall performance. Objective Content validation of the narrative profiles derived from routine clinical consultations to inform a developmental roadmap for patient-centered consulting.  Methods A qualitative study was performed in Family Medicine (FM) residency training, in which 11 first year and 7 third year FM trainees participated. The same FM assessor (n=11) observed a series of encounters of the trainee every three months during their training year, after which recurrent behaviors were described in a feedback report and overall consultation performance classified in one of the four typologies. Feedback reports (n=56) were categorised for each typology, coded on recurrent behaviours and then compared with the concordant narrative profile content. Results We identified overlapping recurrent behaviors and communication themes between the narrative profiles and feedback reports. For typology 1 (DPI+, ME-), the communication approach shows natural alignment with the patient, more exploration of patient concerns is needed, and the treatment plan needs connection to the reasons for consulting. In typology 2, active listening provides room for patient experience, yet patient centredness risks losing focus, while exploring of reasons for consulting is present. Inadequate responses to patient cues and losing structure in the consultation for typology 3, result in not grounding reassurance in clinical findings. For typology 4, curiosity towards patient’s concerns, may support understanding of symptoms and expectations.   Conclusion A developmental road map for patient centered consulting was outlined, covering balancing medical tasks with exploring patient cues, enacting leadership in agenda management and integrating medical expertise in applied communication, providing focus and language for individual learning trajectories.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethical Review Board of the Netherlands Association for Medical Education (NMVO-ERB file number 597).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.