Search

Background: When doctors seek medical care, there is evidence that the treating doctor can struggle to provide optimal treatment. Guidelines state that doctor-patients should be treated like any other patient, but this is challenging for the treating doctor. This study set out to explore both the positive experiences general practitioners (GPs) have when caring for doctor-patients, and the challenges they confront. It sought to identify whether GPs believe they treat doctor-patients differently to other patients and if so, in what ways, for what reasons, and how this impacts their provision of care. The study also aimed to develop a model that makes sense of GPs' experiences when caring for a patient who is also a medical doctor. Method: Qualitative in-depth interviews with 26 GPs were carried out, with analysis of de-identified transcripts using pragmatic grounded theory. Evolving understandings were used to develop a model to make sense of GPs' experiences caring for their doctor-patients. Results: The core aspects of GPs' experiences of treating fellow doctors centred around concepts of respect and collegiality. These play a central role in mediating how a treating doctor experiences a consultation with a doctor-patient, influencing the quality of care provided. GPs shared that the use of medical language (and assumptions about the doctor-patient's knowledge/behaviours), testing, the exploration of sensitive issues, and the degree of shared decision-making were areas where their treatment might vary when treating a doctor-patient. Treating doctors often experience anxiety about errors and the likely scrutiny from the medical, and wider community. The decision to treat the doctor-patient differently was driven by a desire to maintain a sense of collegiality, to not offend, to meet their doctor-patient's expectations, and to appear competent. Conclusion: The professional socialisation of doctors, with its emphasis on collegiality and respect, plays a significant role in the dynamics of the therapeutic relationship when a doctor treats a doctor-patient. Current guidelines make little reference to these dynamics with the over-simplified 'keep it normal' recommendations. Treating doctors need evidence-informed training to navigate these challenges and ensure they can effectively deliver quality care to their doctor-patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic, non-malignant diseases (CNMD) like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and dementia in advanced stages are very burdensome for patients. Timely palliative care with strong collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams can reduce symptom burden, hospitalization rates, hospitalization costs and overall healthcare costs. The KOPAL-study on strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs tested the effect of an intervention comprising of a SPHC nurse assessment and an interprofessional case conference. This qualitative evaluative study explores patients', proxies' and their associates' motivation to participate in the KOPAL-study and views on the (benefits of the) intervention. Methods: We interviewed 13 male and 10 female patients as well as 14 proxies of patients with dementia and six associates of study participants using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis. Results: Motivation for participation was driven by curiosity, the aim to please the GP or to support research, respectively to help other patients. Few interviewees pointed out to have expected positive effects for themselves. The nurse visit was evaluated very positively. Positive changes concerning health care or quality of life were reported sparsely. Most study participants did not prepare for the SPHC nurse assessment. They had no expectations concerning potential benefits of such an assessment, the interdisciplinary case conference and an early integration of palliative care. The majority of interviewees reported that they did not talk about the nurse visit and the interprofessional case conference with their GPs. Conclusion: Our results lead to the conclusion that SPHC nurses can serve as an advocate for the patient and thereby support the patients' autonomy. GPs should actively discuss the results of the interdisciplinary case conference with patients and collaboratively decide on further actions. Patient participation in the interdisciplinary case conference could be another way to increase the effects of the intervention by empowering patients to not just passively receive the intervention. Trial registration: DRKS00017795 German Clinical Trials Register, 17Nov2021, version 05. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While patients from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds are at increased risk of developing chronic health conditions, typically managed within general practice, they report fewer positive consultation experiences with GPs than patients from higher SES groups. To our knowledge, existing research does not provide an in-depth understanding of the GP conducts that contribute to positive consultations. Aim: To identify the factors that patients from low SES backgrounds perceive as essential for creating good consultation experiences. Design & setting: This exploratory pilot study was performed in GP clinics in Melbourne, Australia. Method: We used an appreciative inquiry approach, focused on positive consultation experiences, previously shown to be helpful for researching sensitive topics. Nine patients from low SES backgrounds, who reported positive consultation experiences, undertook a semi-structured qualitative interview while watching the video recording of their GP consultation. Four different GPs were captured in the recordings. Inductive thematic coding was performed by two researchers. Results: The following four categories were developed: 1) the doctor’s demeanour and how the patient was made to feel during the consultation drove their engagement; 2) an established and collaborative therapeutic relationship was of high importance to patients; 3) a doctor’s therapeutic skillset was integral to patient confidence and comfort; and 4) patients appreciated verbal and non-verbal communication techniques. In each interview, the discussion about the video-recorded consultation often triggered reflections about previous consultations with the respective GP. Conclusion: For patients from low SES groups, positive consultation experiences were underpinned by perceived continuity of care with a specific GP who consistently showed good communication skills and key interpersonal characteristics. This research is a small step towards increasing our understanding of the experience of individuals from low SES backgrounds in primary care and the existing health inequities within this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]