Context factors in general practitioner - patient encounters and their impact on assessing communication skills - an exploratory study

BACKGROUND Assessment of medical communication performance usually focuses on rating generically applicable, well-defined communication skills. However, in daily practice, communication is determined by (specific) context factors, such as acquaintance with the patient, or the presented problem. Merely valuing the presence of generic skills may not do justice to the doctor's proficiency.Our aim was to perform an exploratory study on how assessment of general practitioner (GP) communication performance changes if context factors are explicitly taken into account. METHODS We used a mixed method design to explore how ratings would change. A random sample of 40 everyday GP consultations was used to see if previously identified context factors could be observed again. The sample was rated twice using a widely used assessment instrument (the MAAS-Global), first in the standard way and secondly after context factors were explicitly taken into account, by using a context-specific rating protocol to assess communication performance in the workplace. In between first and second rating, the presence of context factors was established. Item score differences were calculated using paired sample t-tests. RESULTS In 38 out of 40 consultations, context factors prompted application of the context-specific rating protocol. Mean overall score on the 7-point MAAS-Global scale increased from 2.98 in standard to 3.66 in the context-specific rating (p<0.00); the effect size for the total mean score was 0.84. In earlier research the minimum standard score for adequate communication was set at 3.17. CONCLUSIONS Applying the protocol, the mean overall score rose above the level set in an earlier study for the MAAS-Global scores to represent 'adequate GP communication behaviour'. Our findings indicate that incorporating context factors in communication assessment thus makes a meaningful difference and shows that context factors should be considered as 'signal' instead of 'noise' in GP communication assessment. Explicating context factors leads to a more deliberate and transparent rating of GP communication performance.The study was funded by the SBOH Foundation, employer of Dutch Family Medicine Residents and funder of the national residency program for GPs in the Netherlands

Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient's view, a qualitative study

Contains fulltext : 109202.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Prophylactic treatment is an important but under-utilised option for the management of migraine. Patients and physicians appear to have reservations about initiating this treatment option. This paper explores the opinions, motives and expectations of patients regarding prophylactic migraine therapy. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study in general practice in the Netherlands with twenty patients recruited from urban and rural general practices. Three focus group meetings were held with 6-7 migraine patients per group (2 female and 1 male group). All participants were migraine patients according to the IHS (International Headache Society); 9 had experience with prophylactic medication. The focus group meetings were analysed using a general thematic analysis. RESULTS: For patients several distinguished factors count when making a decision on prophylactic treatment. The decision of a patient on prophylactic medication is depending on experience and perspectives, grouped into five categories, namely the context of being active or passive in taking the initiative to start prophylaxis; assessing the advantages and disadvantages of prophylaxis; satisfaction with current migraine treatment; the relationship with the physician and the feeling to be heard; and previous steps taken to prevent migraine. CONCLUSION: In addition to the functional impact of migraine, the decision to start prophylaxis is based on a complex of considerations from the patient's perspective (e.g. perceived burden of migraine, expected benefits or disadvantages, interaction with relatives, colleagues and physician). Therefore, when advising migraine patients about prophylaxis, their opinions should be taken into account. Patients need to be open to advice and information and intervention have to be offered at an appropriate moment in the course of migraine

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Prophylactic treatment of migraine; the patient&apos;s view, a qualitative study

Abstract Background: Prophylactic treatment is an important but under-utilised option for the management of migraine. Patients and physicians appear to have reservations about initiating this treatment option. This paper explores the opinions, motives and expectations of patients regarding prophylactic migraine therapy

Prophylactic treatment of migraine by GPs: a qualitative study

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Despite the considerable impact of migraine, the use of preventive medication in primary care is limited. Only about 5% of migraine patients who qualify for prophylaxis actually receive it, and adherence is far from optimal. AIM: To explore the opinions of GPs regarding preventive medication for migraine. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative focus group study in Dutch general practice. METHOD: Four focus groups (six GPs each) were formed. GPs were purposively sampled to acquire a range of participants, reflecting the more general GP population. RESULTS: GPs perceived patients' concerns about the impact of migraine and the potential benefits of prophylaxis. However, some were hesitant to start prescribing prophylaxis due to doubts about effectiveness, potential side effects, and the risk of developing drug dependency. GPs' decisions were often based on considerations other than those presented in national guidelines, for example, the patient's need to control their own problem. Many GPs placed responsibility for initiating prophylaxis with the patient. CONCLUSION: Various considerations hamper GPs from managing migraine with preventive medication, and various patient-related concerns cause GPs to deviate from national headache guidelines

Context factors in general practitioner-patient encounters and their impact on assessing communication skills--an exploratory study

Contains fulltext : 118212.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Assessment of medical communication performance usually focuses on rating generically applicable, well-defined communication skills. However, in daily practice, communication is determined by (specific) context factors, such as acquaintance with the patient, or the presented problem. Merely valuing the presence of generic skills may not do justice to the doctor's proficiency.Our aim was to perform an exploratory study on how assessment of general practitioner (GP) communication performance changes if context factors are explicitly taken into account. METHODS: We used a mixed method design to explore how ratings would change. A random sample of 40 everyday GP consultations was used to see if previously identified context factors could be observed again. The sample was rated twice using a widely used assessment instrument (the MAAS-Global), first in the standard way and secondly after context factors were explicitly taken into account, by using a context-specific rating protocol to assess communication performance in the workplace. In between first and second rating, the presence of context factors was established. Item score differences were calculated using paired sample t-tests. RESULTS: In 38 out of 40 consultations, context factors prompted application of the context-specific rating protocol. Mean overall score on the 7-point MAAS-Global scale increased from 2.98 in standard to 3.66 in the context-specific rating (p<0.00); the effect size for the total mean score was 0.84. In earlier research the minimum standard score for adequate communication was set at 3.17. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the protocol, the mean overall score rose above the level set in an earlier study for the MAAS-Global scores to represent 'adequate GP communication behaviour'. Our findings indicate that incorporating context factors in communication assessment thus makes a meaningful difference and shows that context factors should be considered as 'signal' instead of 'noise' in GP communication assessment. Explicating context factors leads to a more deliberate and transparent rating of GP communication performance