Patient satisfaction with out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: In recent years out-of-hours primary care in the Netherlands has changed from practice-based to large-scale cooperatives. The purpose of this study is to determine patient satisfaction with current out-of-hours care organised in general practitioner (GP) cooperatives, and gain insight in factors associated with this satisfaction. METHODS: From March to June 2003, 2805 questionnaires were sent to patients within three weeks after they had contacted the GP cooperative in their region. The study was conducted in the province of Limburg in the South of the Netherlands. One-third of these questionnaires was sent to patients who had only received telephone advice, one-third to patients who attended the GP cooperative for consultation, and one-third to patients who received a home visit. Four weeks after the first reminder, a non-respondents telephone interview was performed among a random sample of 100 patients. Analyses were performed with respect to the type of consultation. RESULTS: The total response was 42.4% (1160/2733). Sixty-seven percent of patients who received telephone advice only reported to be satisfied with out-of-hours care. About 80% of patients who went to the GP cooperative for consultation or those receiving a home visit, reported to be satisfied. Factors that were strongly associated with overall satisfaction included, the doctor's assistant's attitude on the phone, opinion on GP's treatment, and waiting time. CONCLUSION: Patients seem generally satisfied with out-of-hours primary care as organised in GP cooperatives. However, patients who received telephone advice only are less satisfied compared to those who attended the GP cooperative or those who received a home visit

Learning in a clinical education programme in primary care : the Maastricht Adoption Programme

Contains fulltext : 64355.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Introduction At Maastricht University, the integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes in preclinical medical education is promoted by an ‘Adoption Programme’, where students carry out assignments in a general practice setting. The assignments are explained and discussed in practical medical coaching groups. The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between the elements that affect learning in the programme. Method Data from the evaluation questionnaires of 188 medical students were used to test a causal model of learning in the programme. A distinction was made between ‘action’ and ‘reflection on action’. We examined the relationships between perceived instructiveness (the programme's value as a learning experience) and the following variables: comprehensibility; feasibility and execution of the assignments; time spent on the assignments, and the direct and indirect influences of the hosting general practitioner (GP) and the practical medical coaching group. Results Performing the assignments had little effect on perceived instructiveness. Coaching by the hosting GP influenced the execution of assignments mainly by its effect on feasibility. Coaching by the GP and in the practical medical coaching groups barely affected perceived instructiveness. Discussion and Conclusion The model gives insight into the contribution of aspects of the Adoption Programme to student learning. The results are probably negatively influenced by the insufficient priority given to the Adoption Programme in the practical medical coaching groups and by inadequate instruction given to the GPs for the purposes of their coaching role. More careful planning of patient-related assignments is recommended. Reflection on assignments and feedback on procedures are needed to lift practical experience onto a higher educational level