Challenges to patient centredness - a comparison of patient and doctor experiences from primary care.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Attitude of Health Personnel
Attitude to Health
Child
Child, Preschool
Decision Making, Shared
Female
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Satisfaction
Patient-Centered Care
Physician-Patient Relations
Physicians, Primary Care
Surveys and Questionnaires
Young Adult
Communication skills
Family practice
General practice
Patient feedback
Patient-centred care
Patient-doctor communication
Reason for encounter
Reason for visit
Shared decision making
Journal
BMC family practice
ISSN: 1471-2296
Titre abrégé: BMC Fam Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967792
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 06 2019
15 06 2019
Historique:
received:
06
12
2018
accepted:
30
04
2019
entrez:
17
6
2019
pubmed:
17
6
2019
medline:
26
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We designed this observational study to investigate the level of patients' and doctors' ratings of patient-centred aspects of the primary care consultation. Questionnaire study with patients and doctors. Consecutive patients in a primary care setting and 16 doctors responding post visit. Results are presented as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. 411 questionnaires, 223 from patients and 188 from doctors, covered 251 consultations. Both patients and doctors gave the highest possible estimations on the aspects of patient-centred communication and satisfaction less frequently when the patient had other reasons for visit than purely somatic. Unlike the doctors' estimations, the frequency of highest possible estimations in patient responses dropped if the patients had two to six reasons for visit rather than one. Among the six patient-centred aspects, both patients and doctors gave the highest possible estimation least frequently on the aspect of shared decision-making. The results suggest that the nature of the reason, as well as the number of reasons for visit, interferes with the doctors' level of patient-centred communication. Our results furthermore confirm the findings of previous studies that doctors insufficiently involve patients in their care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We designed this observational study to investigate the level of patients' and doctors' ratings of patient-centred aspects of the primary care consultation.
METHODS
Questionnaire study with patients and doctors. Consecutive patients in a primary care setting and 16 doctors responding post visit. Results are presented as proportions with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
411 questionnaires, 223 from patients and 188 from doctors, covered 251 consultations. Both patients and doctors gave the highest possible estimations on the aspects of patient-centred communication and satisfaction less frequently when the patient had other reasons for visit than purely somatic. Unlike the doctors' estimations, the frequency of highest possible estimations in patient responses dropped if the patients had two to six reasons for visit rather than one. Among the six patient-centred aspects, both patients and doctors gave the highest possible estimation least frequently on the aspect of shared decision-making.
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that the nature of the reason, as well as the number of reasons for visit, interferes with the doctors' level of patient-centred communication. Our results furthermore confirm the findings of previous studies that doctors insufficiently involve patients in their care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31202259
doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0959-y
pii: 10.1186/s12875-019-0959-y
pmc: PMC6570949
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
83Références
Eur J Public Health. 2005 Aug;15(4):355-60
pubmed: 15975955
JAMA. 1999 Jan 20;281(3):283-7
pubmed: 9918487
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Jan;59(558):29-36
pubmed: 19105913
Fam Pract. 1997 Aug;14(4):295-301
pubmed: 9283850
BMJ. 2001 Oct 20;323(7318):908-11
pubmed: 11668137
Ann Intern Med. 1984 Nov;101(5):692-6
pubmed: 6486600
BMJ. 2000 May 6;320(7244):1246-50
pubmed: 10797036
Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2011;2011:137492
pubmed: 22007206
J Fam Pract. 2000 Sep;49(9):796-804
pubmed: 11032203
Med Teach. 2001 May;23(3):245-251
pubmed: 12098395
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2007 Sep;25(3):178-85
pubmed: 17846937
Int J Nurs Terminol Classif. 2010 Jan-Mar;21(1):21-32
pubmed: 20132355
Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2011 Feb;64(Pt 1):20-37
pubmed: 21506943
J Psychosom Res. 2013 Jan;74(1):82-5
pubmed: 23272993
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Nov;27(11):1016-21
pubmed: 22068060
BMJ. 2001 Feb 24;322(7284):468-72
pubmed: 11222423
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Oct;61(7):1516-28
pubmed: 16005784
Acad Med. 2003 Aug;78(8):802-9
pubmed: 12915371
Fam Pract. 1986 Mar;3(1):24-30
pubmed: 3956899
J Fam Pract. 1989 Jan;28(1):59-63
pubmed: 2913179
Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Oct;49(447):796-800
pubmed: 10885083
J Health Soc Behav. 1975 Jun;16(2):213-25
pubmed: 1159292
BMJ. 2002 Sep 28;325(7366):682-3
pubmed: 12351359
J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jun;26(6):588-94
pubmed: 21264521
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Jun;47(6):647-57
pubmed: 7722577
Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Oct;45(399):520-4
pubmed: 7492420
Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25:497-519
pubmed: 15015932
Health Care Anal. 2012 Sep;20(3):231-49
pubmed: 21786152