Collaboration with general practitioners: preferences of medical specialists – a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists has been the focus of many collaborative care projects during the past decade. Unfortunately, quite a number of these projects failed. This raises the question of what motivates medical specialists to initiate and continue participating with GPs in new collaborative care models. The following question is addressed in this study: What motivates medical specialists to initiate and sustain new models for collaborating with GPs? METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with eighteen medical specialists in the province of Groningen, in the North of The Netherlands. The sampling criteria were age, gender, type of hospital in which they were practicing, and specialty. The interviews were recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed by three researchers working independently. The resulting motivational factors were grouped into categories. RESULTS: 'Teaching GPs' and 'regulating patient flow' (referrals) appeared to dominate when the motivational factors were considered. In addition, specialists want to develop relationships with the GPs on a more personal level. Most specialists believe that there is not much they can learn from GPs. 'Lack of time', 'no financial compensation', and 'no support from colleagues' were considered to be the main concerns to establishing collaborative care practices. Additionally, projects were often experienced as too complex and time consuming whereas guidelines were experienced as too restrictive. CONCLUSION: Specialists are particularly interested in collaborating because the GP is the gatekeeper for access to secondary health care resources. Specialists feel that they are able to teach the GPs something, but they do not feel that they have anything to learn from the GPs. With respect to professional expertise, therefore, specialists do not consider GPs as equals. Once personal relationships with the GPs have been established, an informal network with incidental professional contact seems to be sufficient to satisfy the collaborative needs of the specialist. The concerns seem to outweigh any positive motivational forces to developing new models of collaborative practice

Cultural diversity teaching and issues of uncertainty: the findings of a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: There is considerable ambiguity in the subjective dimensions that comprise much of the relational dynamic of the clinical encounter. Comfort with this ambiguity, and recognition of the potential uncertainty of particular domains of medicine (e.g.--cultural factors of illness expression, value bias in diagnoses, etc) is an important facet of medical education. This paper begins by defining ambiguity and uncertainty as relevant to clinical practice. Studies have shown differing patterns of students' tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty that appear to reflect extant attitudinal predispositions toward technology, objectivity, culture, value- and theory-ladeness, and the need for self-examination. This paper reports on those findings specifically related to the theme of uncertainty as relevant to teaching about cultural diversity. Its focus is to identify how and where the theme of certainty arose in the teaching and learning of cultural diversity, what were the attitudes toward this theme and topic, and how these attitudes and responses reflect and inform this area of medical pedagogy. METHODS: A semi-structured interview was undertaken with 61 stakeholders (including policymakers, diversity teachers, students and users). The data were analysed and themes identified. RESULTS: There were diverse views about what the term cultural diversity means and what should constitute the cultural diversity curriculum. There was a need to provide certainty in teaching cultural diversity with diversity teachers feeling under considerable pressure to provide information. Students discomfort with uncertainty was felt to drive cultural diversity teaching towards factual emphasis rather than reflection or taking a patient centred approach. CONCLUSION: Students and faculty may feel that cultural diversity teaching is more about how to avoid professional, medico-legal pitfalls, rather than improving the patient experience or the patient-physician relationship. There may be pressure to imbue cultural diversity issues with levels of objectivity and certainty representative of other aspects of the medical curriculum (e.g.--biochemistry). This may reflect a particular selection bias for students with a technocentric orientation. Inadvertently, medical education may enhance this bias through training effects, and accommodate disregard for subjectivity, over-reliance upon technology and thereby foster incorrect assumptions of objective certainty. We opine that it is important to teach students that technology cannot guarantee certainty, and that dealing with subjectivity, diversity, ambiguity and uncertainty is inseparable from the personal dimension of medicine as moral enterprise. Uncertainty is inherent in cultural diversity so this part of the curriculum provides an opportunity to address the issue as it relates to patient care

Patient Complexity: More Than Comorbidity. The Vector Model of Complexity

BACKGROUND: The conceptualization of patient complexity is just beginning in clinical medicine. OBJECTIVES: This study aims (1) to propose a conceptual approach to complex patients; (2) to demonstrate how this approach promotes achieving congruence between patient and provider, a critical step in the development of maximally effective treatment plans; and (3) to examine availability of evidence to guide trade-off decisions and assess healthcare quality for complex patients. METHODS/RESULTS: The Vector Model of Complexity portrays interactions between biological, socioeconomic, cultural, environmental and behavioral forces as health determinants. These forces are not easily discerned but exert profound influences on processes and outcomes of care for chronic medical conditions. Achieving congruence between patient, physician, and healthcare system is essential for effective, patient-centered care; requires assessment of all axes of the Vector Model; and, frequently, requires trade-off decisions to develop a tailored treatment plan. Most evidence-based guidelines rarely provide guidance for trade-off decisions. Quality measures often exclude complex patients and are not designed explicitly to assess their overall healthcare. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: We urgently need to expand the evidence base to inform the care of complex patients of all kinds, especially for the clinical trade-off decisions that are central to tailoring care. We offer long- and short-term strategies to begin to incorporate complexity into quality measurement and performance profiling, guided by the Vector Model. Interdisciplinary research should lay the foundation for a deeper understanding of the multiple sources of patient complexity and their interactions, and how provision of healthcare should be harmonized with complexity to optimize health

No Exit: An Evaluation of Measures of Physician Attrition

OBJECTIVE: To validate physicians' self-reported intentions to leave clinical practice and the American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile practice status variable as measures of physician attrition, and to determine predictors of intention to leave, and actual departure from, clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Survey of specialist physicians in urban California (1998); the AMA Physician Masterfile (2001); and direct ascertainment of physician practice status (2001). STUDY DESIGN: Physicians' intention to leave clinical practice by 2001 (self-reported in 1998) was tested as a measure of each physician's actual practice status in 2001 (directly ascertained). Physician practice status according to the 2001 AMA Masterfile was also tested as a measure of physicians' actual practice status in 2001. Multivariate regression was used to predict both physicians' intentions to leave clinical practice and their actual departure. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: AMA Masterfile data on 2001 practice status were obtained for 967 of 968 physician respondents to the 1998 survey. Actual practice status for 2001 was directly ascertained for 957. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The sensitivity of Masterfile practice status as a measure of actual departure from clinical practice was 9.0 percent, and the positive predictive value was 52.9 percent. Allowing for a two-year reporting lag did not change this substantially. Self-reported intention to leave clinical practice had a sensitivity of 73.3 percent and a positive predictive value of 35.4 percent as a measure of actual departure from practice. The strongest predictor of both intention to leave clinical practice and actual departure from practice was older age. Physician dissatisfaction had a strong association (OR=5.6) with intention to leave clinical practice, but was not associated with actual departure from practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings call into question the accuracy of both AMA Masterfile data and physicians' self-reported intentions to leave as measures of physician attrition from clinical practice. Research using these measures should be interpreted with caution. Self-reported intention to leave practice may be more of a proxy for dissatisfaction than an accurate predictor of actual behavior