Can nurses be trained as facilitators for physicians’ learning?

C

Managing evidence on palliative care: are realist reviews feasible?

C

What makes up good consultations? A qualitative study of GPs' discourses

Background: In medical literature, several principles that define 'good consultations' have been outlined. These principles tend to be prescriptive in nature, overlooking the complexity of general practitioners (GPs)' perspectives of everyday practice. Focusing on perspectives might be particularly relevant, since they may affect decisions and actions. Therefore, the present study adopts a bottom-up approach, analyzing GPs' narratives about 'good' and 'bad' consultations. We aimed at describing the range of discourses GPs use in relating on their practice. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 Belgian GPs. By means of a qualitative analysis, the authors mapped patterns in the interview narratives and described the range of different discourses. Results: Four discourses were identified: a biomedically-centered discourse, a communication-focused discourse, a problem-solving discourse and a satisfaction-oriented discourse. Each discourse was further specified in terms of predominant themes, problems the GPs prefer to deal with and inherent difficulties. Although most participants used elements from all four discourses, the majority of the GPs relied on an individual set of predominant discourses and focused on a limited number of themes. Conclusion: This study clearly indicates that there is no uniform way in which GPs perceive clinical practice. Each of the participants used a subtle mix of different criteria to define good and bad medical consultations. Some discourse elements appear to be rooted in medical literature, whereas others are of a more personal nature. By focusing on the limitations of each discourse, this study can shed new light on some of the difficulties GPs encounter in their daily practice: being confronted with specific problems might be an effect of adhering to a specific discourse. The typification of different discourses on consultations may function as a framework to help GPs reflect on how they perceive their practice, and help them manage some of the challenges met in daily practice

Development and validation of EMP-3 : an instrument to measure physicians' attitudes towards ethnic minority patients

Background and Objectives: The growing diversity of patient populations challenges health care providers. Physicians' attitudes and perceptions toward cultural diversity in health care could be partly contributing to difficulties in communication between physicians and ethnic minority patients. To evaluate these attitudes and perceptions, an instrument was developed and validated. Methods: A preliminary version of the instrument was developed through literature research and expert consultation and completed by 112 family physicians. Factor analysis was performed and reliability and construct validity tested. Results: The instrument revealed three factors that were interpreted as: (1) physicians' task perception and ideas on cultural differences in health and health care, (2) physicians' attitudes toward physician-patient communication with minority patients, and (3) physicians' perception of minority patients' needs in communication. Moderate but significant correlations were found between factors of the EMP-3 and practice organization, practice location, and physicians' gender. Several factors of the Jefferson Empathy Scale, the Patient Practitioner Orientation Scale, and the Health Beliefs and Attitude Scale related to the first two factors of the EMP-3. Conclusions: This instrument, designed specifically to measure physicians' attitudes toward cultural diversity, showed moderate validity and reliability results. Further adaptations and evaluation could be useful