Search

Objective. To gain insight into clinical practice regarding referral, early diagnosis and other aspects of the management of patients with dcSSc in Europe and the USA. Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 84 rheumatologists (or internal medicine physicians) and 40 dermatologists in different countries (the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the USA). Physicians were asked to identify key steps in the patient pathway relating to patient presentation, diagnosis and referral, in addition to other treatment and follow-up processes. Results. The interviewed physicians reported that late presentation with dcSSc was common, with some patients presenting to primary care physicians after symptoms had persisted for up to 1 year. Awareness of dcSSc is reported to vary widely among primary care physicians. Final diagnosis, generally following guideline-based recommendations, was by rheumatologists in most cases (or internal medicine physicians in France) and they remained responsible for global patient management, with lesser involvement in diagnosis and management by dermatologists. Specialist centres were not well defined and did not exist in all countries. Conclusion. Patients and primary healthcare providers can be unaware of the symptoms of dcSSc, therefore presentation and referral to specialist care are often late. Thus, improved awareness among patients and primary care physicians is necessary to facilitate earlier referral and diagnosis. Once referred, more consistent use of the modified Rodnan skin score at diagnosis and follow-up may help to monitor disease progression. Furthermore, establishing specialist centres may help to promote such changes and improve patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evidence that inspires and fosters communication skills, teaching programmes and clinical recommendations are often based on national studies which assume, implicitly, that patients' preferences towards doctors' communication style are not significantly affected by their cultural background. The cross-cultural validity of national results has been recognized as a potential limitation on how generally applicable they are in a wider context. Using 35 country-specific focus group discussions from four European countries, the aim of the present study is to test whether or not national cultures influence lay people's preferences towards doctors' style of communication.Methods: Lay people preferences on doctor's communication style have been collected in Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Italy. Each centre organized between eight and nine focus groups, where participants (n = 259) were asked to comment on a video of a simulated medical interview. The discussions were audiotaped, transcribed and coded using a common framework (Guliver Coding System) that allowed for the identification of different themes.Results: The frequency distribution of the topics discussed highlights lay people's generally positive views towards most part of doctors interventions. The regression model applied to the Guliver categories highlighted slight national differences and the existence of a cross-cultural appreciation, in particular, of five types of intervention: Doctors attitudes (both Task-Oriented and Affective/Emotional), Summarizing, Structuring and Providing solution.Conclusion: Lay panels valued doctors' communication style in a similar manner in the countries selected. This highlights the existence of a common background, which in the process of internationalization of heath care, might foster the implementation of cross-national teaching programmes and clinical guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]