Patient complaints in general practice seen through the lens of professionalism:a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND: Professionalism is a key competence for physicians. Patient complaints provide a unique insight into patient expectations regarding professionalism. Research exploring the exact nature of patient complaints in general practice, especially focused on professionalism, is limited. AIM: To characterise patient complaints in primary care and to explore in more detail which issues with professionalism exist. DESIGN & SETTING: A retrospective observational study in which all unsolicited patient complaints to a representative out-of-hours general practice (OOH GP) service provider in The Netherlands were analysed over a 10-year period (2009–2019). METHOD: Complaints were coded for general characteristics and thematically categorised using the CanMEDS Physician Competency Framework (CanMEDS) as sensitising concepts. Complaints categorised as professionalism were subdivided using open coding. RESULTS: Out of 746 996 patient consultations (telephone, face-to-face, and home visits) 484 (0.065%) resulted in eligible complaint letters. The majority consisted of two or more complaints, resulting in 833 different complaints. Most complaints concerned GPs (80%); a minority (19%) assistants. Thirty-five per cent concerned perceived professionalism lapses of physicians. A rich diversity in the wording of professionalism lapses was found, where ' not being taken seriously ' was mentioned most often. Forty-five per cent related to medical expertise, such as missed diagnoses or unsuccessful clinical treatment. Nineteen per cent related to management problems, especially waiting times and access to care. Communication issues were only explicitly mentioned in 1% of the complaints. CONCLUSION: Most unsolicited patient complaints were related to clinical problems. A third, however, concerned professionalism issues. Not being taken seriously was the most frequent mentioned theme within the professionalism category

Quality of written narrative feedback and reflection in a modified mini-clinical evaluation exercise: an observational study

Contains fulltext : 109243.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Research has shown that narrative feedback, (self) reflections and a plan to undertake and evaluate improvements are key factors for effective feedback on clinical performance. We investigated the quantity of narrative comments comprising feedback (by trainers), self-reflections (by trainees) and action plans (by trainer and trainee) entered on a mini-CEX form that was modified for use in general practice training and to encourage trainers and trainees to provide narrative comments. In view of the importance of specificity as an indicator of feedback quality, we additionally examined the specificity of the comments. METHOD: We collected and analysed modified mini-CEX forms completed by GP trainers and trainees. Since each trainee has the same trainer for the duration of one year, we used trainer-trainee pairs as the unit of analysis. We determined for all forms the frequency of the different types of narrative comments and rated their specificity on a three-point scale: specific, moderately specific, not specific. Specificity was compared between trainee-trainer pairs. RESULTS: We collected 485 completed modified mini-CEX forms from 54 trainees (mean of 8.8 forms per trainee; range 1-23; SD 5.6). Trainer feedback was more frequently provided than trainee self-reflections, and action plans were very rare. The comments were generally specific, but showed large differences between trainee-trainer pairs. CONCLUSION: The frequency of self-reflection and action plans varied, all comments were generally specific and there were substantial and consistent differences between trainee-trainer pairs in the specificity of comments. We therefore conclude that feedback is not so much determined by the instrument as by the users. Interventions to improve the educational effects of the feedback procedure should therefore focus more on the users than on the instruments

How do postgraduate GP trainees regulate their learning and what helps and hinders them? A qualitative study

Contains fulltext : 108146.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Self-regulation is essential for professional development. It involves monitoring of performance, identifying domains for improvement, undertaking learning activities, applying newly learned knowledge and skills and self-assessing performance. Since self-assessment alone is ineffective in identifying weaknesses, learners should seek external feedback too. Externally regulated educational interventions, like reflection, learning portfolios, assessments and progress meetings, are increasingly used to scaffold self-regulation.The aim of this study is to explore how postgraduate trainees regulate their learning in the workplace, how external regulation promotes self-regulation and which elements facilitate or impede self-regulation and learning. METHODS: In a qualitative study with a phenomenologic approach we interviewed first- and third-year GP trainees from two universities in the Netherlands. Twenty-one verbatim transcripts were coded. Through iterative discussion the researchers agreed on the interpretation of the data and saturation was reached. RESULTS: Trainees used a short and a long self-regulation loop. The short loop took one week at most and was focused on problems that were easy to resolve and needed minor learning activities. The long loop was focused on complex or recurring problems needing multiple and planned longitudinal learning activities. External assessments and formal training affected the long but not the short loop. The supervisor had a facilitating role in both loops. Self-confidence was used to gauge competence.Elements influencing self-regulation were classified into three dimensions: personal (strong motivation to become a good doctor), interpersonal (stimulation from others) and contextual (organizational and educational features). CONCLUSIONS: Trainees did purposefully self-regulate their learning. Learning in the short loop may not be visible to others. Trainees should be encouraged to actively seek and use external feedback in both loops. An important question for further research is which educational interventions might be used to scaffold learning in the short loop. Investing in supervisor quality remains important, since they are close to trainee learning in both loops