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

Investigating the impact of extraneous distractions on consultations in general practice: Lessons learned

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Extraneous distractions may influence the flow of general practice consultations. This study piloted a methodology to examine the impact of interrupting general practitioners (GPs) while consulting actor-patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Six GPs were video recorded consulting six actor-patients each presenting a different clinical scenario in a simulated surgery. Five cases presented red flag cancer symptoms. Half the consultations were interrupted. Two independent assessors, blinded to the occurrence of interruptions, assessed consultation performance using the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP) for clinical competence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>24 of 36 consultations were video recorded with sufficient audio-visual clarity to allow scoring. The association between LAP score and three variables could be studied: a variety of interruptions, different GPs and various scenarios. Agreement between assessors on GP performance was poor and showed an increased bias with increasing LAP score. Despite this, the interruption did not significantly impact on assessor LAP scores (Mean difference: 0.22, P = 0.83) even after controlling for assessor, different GPs and scenarios.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Extraneous distractions had no impact on GP performance in this underpowered pilot study, a conclusion which needs to be confirmed in a larger study. However several important lessons were learned. Recorded actor-patient clinical sessions are logistically challenging. GPs whose skills were not previously assessed were working in unfamiliar surroundings dealing with relatively straight forward diagnostic challenges and may have anticipated the interruptions. In a redesign of this experiment it may be possible to eliminate some of these limitations.</p

Investigating the impact of extraneous distractions on consultations in general practice: Lessons learned

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Extraneous distractions may influence the flow of general practice consultations. This study piloted a methodology to examine the impact of interrupting general practitioners (GPs) while consulting actor-patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Six GPs were video recorded consulting six actor-patients each presenting a different clinical scenario in a simulated surgery. Five cases presented red flag cancer symptoms. Half the consultations were interrupted. Two independent assessors, blinded to the occurrence of interruptions, assessed consultation performance using the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP) for clinical competence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>24 of 36 consultations were video recorded with sufficient audio-visual clarity to allow scoring. The association between LAP score and three variables could be studied: a variety of interruptions, different GPs and various scenarios. Agreement between assessors on GP performance was poor and showed an increased bias with increasing LAP score. Despite this, the interruption did not significantly impact on assessor LAP scores (Mean difference: 0.22, P = 0.83) even after controlling for assessor, different GPs and scenarios.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Extraneous distractions had no impact on GP performance in this underpowered pilot study, a conclusion which needs to be confirmed in a larger study. However several important lessons were learned. Recorded actor-patient clinical sessions are logistically challenging. GPs whose skills were not previously assessed were working in unfamiliar surroundings dealing with relatively straight forward diagnostic challenges and may have anticipated the interruptions. In a redesign of this experiment it may be possible to eliminate some of these limitations.</p

Identifying context factors explaining physician's low performance in communication assessment: an explorative study in general practice

Contains fulltext : 97982.pdf (postprint version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Communication is a key competence for health care professionals. Analysis of registrar and GP communication performance in daily practice, however, suggests a suboptimal application of communication skills. The influence of context factors could reveal why communication performance levels, on average, do not appear adequate. The context of daily practice may require different skills or specific ways of handling these skills, whereas communication skills are mostly treated as generic. So far no empirical analysis of the context has been made. Our aim was to identify context factors that could be related to GP communication. METHODS: A purposive sample of real-life videotaped GP consultations was analyzed (N = 17). As a frame of reference we chose the MAAS-Global, a widely used assessment instrument for medical communication. By inductive reasoning, we analyzed the GP behaviour in the consultation leading to poor item scores on the MAAS-Global. In these cases we looked for the presence of an intervening context factor, and how this might explain the actual GP communication behaviour. RESULTS: We reached saturation after having viewed 17 consultations. We identified 19 context factors that could potentially explain the deviation from generic recommendations on communication skills. These context factors can be categorized into doctor-related, patient-related, and consultation-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Several context factors seem to influence doctor-patient communication, requiring the GP to apply communication skills differently from recommendations on communication. From this study we conclude that there is a need to explicitly account for context factors in the assessment of GP (and GP registrar) communication performance. The next step is to validate our findings

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