Dataset Information

Impact on patients of expanded, general practice based, student teaching: observational and qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare patients' enablement and satisfaction after teaching and non-teaching consultations. To explore patients' views about the possible impact that increased community based teaching of student doctors in their practice may have on the delivery of service and their attitudes towards direct involvement with students.

Design

Observational study using validated survey instruments (patient enablement index--PEI, and consultation satisfaction questionnaire--CSQ) administered after teaching consultations and non-teaching consultations. Ten focus groups (two from each practice), comprising five with patients participating in prearranged teaching sessions and five with patients not participating in these.

Setting

Five general practices in west Suffolk and southern Norfolk, England, that teach student doctors on the Cambridge graduate medical course.

Participants

240 patients attending teaching consultations (response rate 82%, 196 patients) and 409 patients attending non-teaching consultations (response rate 72%, 294 patients) received survey instruments. Ten focus groups with a total of 34 patients participating in prearranged teaching sessions and 20 patients not participating in these.

Main outcome measures

Scores on the patient enablement index and consultation satisfaction questionnaire, analysed at the level of all patients, allowing for age, sex, general practitioner, and practice, and at the level of the individual general practitioner teacher. Qualitative analysis of focus group data.

Results

Patients' enablement or satisfaction was not reduced after teaching consultations compared with non-teaching consultations (mean difference in scores on the patient enablement index and consultation satisfaction questionnaire with adjustment for confounders 2.24% and 1.70%, respectively). This held true for analysis by all patients and by general practitioner teacher. Qualitative data showed that patients generally supported the teaching of student doctors in their practice. However, this support was conditional on receiving sufficient information about reasons for doctors' absence, the characteristics of students, and the nature of teaching planned. Many patients viewed their general practice as different from hospital and expected greater control over students' presence during their consultations.

Conclusions

Patients' enablement and satisfaction are not impaired by students' participation in consultations. Patients generally support the teaching of student doctors in their general practice but expect to be provided with sufficient information and to have a choice about participation, so they can give informed consent. Recognising this when organising general practice based teaching is important.

SUBMITTER: Benson J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC558616 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact on patients of expanded, general practice based, student teaching: observational and qualitative study.

Benson John J Quince Thelma T Hibble Arthur A Fanshawe Thomas T Emery Jon J

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20050704 7508

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare patients' enablement and satisfaction after teaching and non-teaching consultations. To explore patients' views about the possible impact that increased community based teaching of student doctors in their practice may have on the delivery of service and their attitudes towards direct involvement with students.<h4>Design</h4>Observational study using validated survey instruments (patient enablement index--PEI, and consultation satisfaction questionnaire--CSQ) admini ...[more]

PMID: 15996965

Similar Datasets

Project description:There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK).Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice.Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models.Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2015, pharmacists have been integrating into English general practices and more recently into primary care networks. General practice-based pharmacists provide a range of patient-facing services, such as medication reviews, management of long-term conditions and minor ailments, prescribing duties and answering queries over the telephone. Literature reports patients' satisfaction with general practice-based pharmacists' services, however, previous research captured only limited experiences. The aim of the current study was to pursue an extensive exploration of patients' experiences of pharmacists in general practice.MethodsGeneral practice-based pharmacists, working in practices in West London, Surrey and Berkshire, handed invitation packs to patients seen during consultations. Patients that wanted to take part in the study were invited to undertake a qualitative, in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interview within the practice with which each patient was registered. Interviews lasted from 15 min to more than 1 h and were audio-recorded. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and transcripts analysed thematically.ResultsTwenty participants were interviewed. Four themes were discerned: awareness ("I had been coming to this practice for 24 years and I didn't know that there was a pharmacist"); accessibility ("People ring for a GP [general practitioner] appointment … it's Monday and they [receptionist] tells you 'We can slot you in on Friday' … with a pharmacist on board, they can [instantly] look at you"); interactions ("I've always had a really good interaction with them [pharmacists] and they listen and they take on board what I'm trying to say"); and feedback ("It's easier [to collect feedback instantly] because I could have forgotten half of what they [pharmacists] have told me in an hour or so's time").ConclusionsFindings indicate that pharmacists' integration into general practices could improve accessibility to, and the quality of, care received. The findings will assist policy development to provide general practice-based pharmacists' services as per patients' needs.

Project description:BackgroundAnaemia can be a pointer of underlying severe disease, including undiagnosed malignancy. Subsequent blood tests are essential to classify the anaemia into subtypes and to facilitate targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis of underlying disease.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe and classify anaemia based on laboratory tests from patients with new-onset anaemia detected in general practice. An additional aim was to analyse associations between patient characteristics and unclassified anaemia (not classifiable according to an algorithm).DesignPopulation-based cross-sectional study.SettingDanish general practice.SubjectsA total of 62,731 patients (age: 40-90 years) with new-onset anaemia were identified in Danish laboratory information systems and nationwide registries, and data were obtained for 2014-2018.Main outcome measuresWe measured the proportion of patients classified into subtypes of anaemia based on blood tests requested by general practitioners within 31 days of the anaemia index date.ResultsOf the 62,731 patients with new-onset anaemia, we identified unclassified anaemia in 78.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.3-80.5) of men and 65.1% (CI: 63.4-66.9) of women. The likelihood of unclassified anaemia increased with age, increasing comorbidity and decreasing severity of anaemia.ConclusionThe majority of patients with new-onset anaemia could not be classified through a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests, which highlights a potential missed opportunity for diagnosis. Standardised laboratory testing of patients with anaemia is warranted to ensure adequate follow-up and early detection of underlying severe disease.KEY POINTSAnaemia can be a sign of malignancy, and anaemia classification is an important step in the diagnosis of underlying disorders.The majority of patients with anaemia could not be classified according to a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests.Some patient characteristics were associated with a high risk of unclassified anaemia: high age, high comorbidity, and severe anaemia.Standardised laboratory testing in patients with anaemia is needed to inform targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To describe how general practitioners (GPs) use point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) and how it influences the diagnostic process and treatment of patients. DESIGN:Prospective observational study using an online questionnaire before and after POCUS. SETTING:Office-based general practice. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty GPs consecutively recruited all patients examined with POCUS in 1 month. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:We estimated the use of POCUS through the indication for use, the frequency of use, the time consumption, the extent of modification of the examination and the findings.The influence on the diagnostic process was estimated through change in the tentative diagnoses, change in confidence, the ability to produce ultrasound images and the relationship between confidence and organs scanned or tentative diagnoses.The influence of POCUS on patient treatment was estimated through change in plan for the patient, change in patient's treatment and the relationship between such changes and certain findings. RESULTS:The GPs included 574 patients in the study. POCUS was used in patient consultations with a median frequency of 8.6% (IQR: 4.9-12.6). Many different organs were scanned covering more than 100 different tentative diagnoses. The median time taken to perform POCUS was 5 min (IQR: 3-8). Across applications and GPs, POCUS entailed a change in diagnoses in 49.4% of patients; increased confidence in a diagnosis in 89.2% of patients; a change in the management plan for 50.9% of patients including an absolute reduction in intended referrals to secondary care from 49.2% to 25.6%; and a change in treatment for 26.5% of patients. CONCLUSIONS:The clinical utilisation of POCUS was highly variable among the GPs included in this study in terms of the indication for performing POCUS, examined scanning modalities and frequency of use. Overall, using POCUS altered the GPs' diagnostic process and clinical decision-making in nearly three out of four consultations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03375333.

Dataset Information

Impact on patients of expanded, general practice based, student teaching: observational and qualitative study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Impact on patients of expanded, general practice based, student teaching: observational and qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets