Search

Aim To investigate the organisation of diabetes care in general practice in Ireland and identify areas for future development. Methods Survey of a representative sample of 600 general practitioners (GPs). The questionnaire contained closed and open-ended questions addressing 4 topics; characteristics of the practice, diabetes care delivery, use of services and opportunities for developing diabetes care. Results The response rate was 44% ( n =262). There were an additional 86 responses to a follow-up shortened version of the survey resulting in a 58% response rate for 9 key questions. The majority of respondents were from an urban (43%, n =112) or a mixed area (39%, n =101) and 19% of practices were single-handed ( n =66). The reported prevalence in participating practices was 0.7% for Type 1 diabetes and 2.8% for Type 2 diabetes. Forty-five percent of GPs maintained a diabetes register ( n =157) while 53% reported using guidelines ( n =140). A formal call recall system was reported by 30% ( n =78) with a further 20% ( n =54) reporting a regular if informal approach to calling patients for review. With regard to the use of diabetes related services 63% reported direct access to a dietician ( n =165), 57% direct access to chiropody services ( n =149) and 89% had direct access to retinopathy screening ( n =234). There was a significant association between maintaining a diabetes register and other aspects of care delivery such as engaging in formal recall ( p p p =0.001). Of a number of choices 75% of GPs thought that training was the principal opportunity for improving diabetes care. In response to the open-ended questions GPs cited lack of resources, time constraints and workload as barriers to effective care delivery. Conclusions Delivery of diabetes care in Ireland remains largely unstructured. Key challenges to improving diabetes care appear to extend to the system and organisational level of care delivery.

Although the relevance of patients' views about medicines for their medicine taking behaviour is now well established, little is known about the ways in which these views are discussed in primary care consultations. In particular, many studies have demonstrated patients' aversion to medicines. This paper examines the form that aversion talk takes in the consultation and how doctors respond to patients' expression of aversion to medicines. It is based on a dataset of 35 case studies of general practice consultations in England. In interviews with researchers, aversion to medicines was expressed in 34 of the 35 cases. In consultations with doctors, aversion was expressed in 10 cases. The interactional dimension of aversion talk in consultations was analysed using Conversation Analysis, and two general patterns were identified. Aversion could be used as an interactional resource, or it could be a topic in its own right. If used as an interactional resource, no real discussion of patients' views of medicines took place. When aversion was a conversational topic in its own right, two situations were observed. Firstly, the doctor elicited patients' views directly. Secondly, patients initiated aversive talk using a range of indirect strategies to do so. Even when patients managed to express their aversion to medicines, doctors did not engage them in any real discussion of their views. A scheme of interpretation is suggested to explain these findings. In this scheme patients perceive medicines to be an extension of the doctor and to be beneficial. In this view it is right for doctors to prescribe medicines and for patients to take medicines. The results of this paper suggest that using aversion as an interactional resource might be the only safe way for patients to express their aversion without seeming to breach the social contract.

Recent policy changes in the UK such as deregulation of prescribed medicines and the introduction of telephone helpline services are intended to promote self-treatment. Drawing on interviews with, and consultations between, 35 patients and 20 general practitioners, we use Kleinman's (Patients and Healers in the context of culture: an exploration of the Borderland between Anthropology, Medicine and Psychiatry, University of California Press Ltd., London) model of the three sectors of health care in order to examine the range of self-treatments people use and the discussion of these treatments in medical consultations. We argue that despite the availability of a range of treatment options and policy changes advocating greater use of self-treatment, patients are inhibited from disclosing prior self-treatment, and disclosure is affected by patients' perceptions of the legitimacy of self-treatment. The findings are in keeping with Cant and Sharma's (A New Medical Pluralism, Alternative Medicines, Doctors, Patients and the State, UCL Press, London) contention that although there has been a pluralisation of "legitimate" providers of health care and a restructuring of expertise, biomedicine itself remains dominant. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Previous qualitative work has identified communication problems between doctors and patients in general practice consultations, particularly in relation to prescribing. This study aimed to develop quantitative measures to extend the research and provide instruments for both researchers and practitioners to use in monitoring communication and prescribing. Questionnaires were developed from existing instruments. When used with patients and doctors in a variety of general practices, the instruments appeared to be acceptable and had high response rates. While many consultations were satisfactory in terms of patients' expectations and their experiences with medicines, only 38% did not have any poor outcome. The results using quantitative instruments were similar to but less striking compared to our previous qualitative work. The research was developmental and findings suggest that unnecessary prescribing and problems in communication are more likely to lead to poor outcomes in terms of non-adherence and patients having barriers to using their medication.

Mishler (The discourse of medicine. The dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex), applying Habermas's theory of Communicative Action to medical encounters. showed how the struggle between the voice of medicine and the voice of the lifeworld fragmented and suppressed patients' multi-faceted, contextualised and meaningful accounts. This paper investigates and critiques Mishler's premise that this results in inhumane, ineffective medical care. Using a more complex data collection strategy, comprising patient interviews, doctor interviews and transcribed consultations we show more complex relations than emerged from Mishler's analysis. We found four communication patterns across 35 general practice case studies. When doctor and patient both used the voice of medicine exclusively (acute physical complaints) this worked for simple unitary problems (Strictly Medicine). When both doctor and patient engaged with the lifeworld, more of the agenda was voiced (Mutual Lifeworld) and patients were recognised as unique human beings (psychological plus physical problems). Poorest outcomes occurred where patients used the voice of the lifeworld but were ignored (Lifeworld Ignored) or blocked (Lifeworld Blocked) by doctors' use of voice of medicine (chronic physical complaints). The analysis supports the premise that increased use of the lifeworld makes for better outcomes and more humane treatment of patients as unique human beings. Some doctors switched communication strategies in different consultations, which suggests that their behaviour might be open to change. If doctors could be sensitised to the importance of dealing with the concerns of the lifeworld for patients with chronic physical conditions as well as psychological conditions, it might be possible to obtain better care for patients. This would require attention to structural aspects of the healthcare system to enable doctors to work fully within the patient-centred model.