BackgroundThere is a large and unexplained variation in referral rates to specialists by general practitioners, which calls for investigations regarding general practitioners’ perceptions and expectations during the referral process. Our objective was to describe the decision-making process underlying referral of patients to specialists by general practitioners working in a university outpatient primary care center.MethodsTwo focus groups were conducted among general practitioners (10 residents and 8 chief residents) working in the Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté) of the University of Lausanne, in Switzerland. Focus group data were analyzed with thematic content analysis. A feedback group of general practitioners validated the results.ResultsParticipating general practitioners distinguished two kinds of situations regarding referral: a) “clear-cut situations”, in which the decision to refer or not seems obvious and b) “complex cases”, in which they hesitate to refer or not. Regarding the “complex cases”, they reported various types of concerns: a) about the treatment, b) about the patient and the doctor-patient relationship and c) about themselves. General practitioners evoked numerous reasons for referring, including non-medical factors such as influencing patients’ emotions, earning specialists’ esteem or sharing responsibility. They also explained that they seek validation by colleagues and postpone referral so as to relieve some of the decision-related distress.ConclusionsGeneral practitioners’ referral of patients to specialists cannot be explained in biomedical terms only. It seems necessary to take into account the fact that referral is a sensitive topic for general practitioners, involving emotionally charged interactions and relationships with patients, colleagues, specialists and supervisors. The decision to refer or not is influenced by multiple contextual, personal and clinical factors that dynamically interact and shape the decision-making process.
IntroductionPrevious research has shown that multiple factors contribute to healthcare providers perceiving encounters as difficult, and are related to both medical and non-medical demands.AimTo measure the prevalence and to identify predictors of encounters perceived as difficult by medical residents.Design and settingCross-sectional study at the Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine (DACCM), a university outpatient clinic with a long tradition of caring for vulnerable patients.MethodWe identified difficult doctor–patient encounters using the validated Difficult Doctor–Patient Relationship Questionnaire (DDPRQ-10), and characterised patients using the patient’s vulnerability grid, a validated questionnaire measuring five domains of vulnerability, both completed by medical residents after each encounter. We used a multiple linear regression model with the outcome variable as the DDPRQ-10 score, controlling for resident characteristics.ParticipantsWe analysed 527 patient encounters performed by all 27 DACCM residents (17 women and 10 men). We asked each medical resident to evaluate 20 consecutive consultations starting on the same date.OutcomeOne hundred and fifty-seven encounters (29.8%) were perceived as difficult.ResultsAfter adjusting for differences among residents, all five domains of the patient vulnerability grid were independently associated with a difficult encounter: frequent healthcare user; psychological comorbidity; health comorbidity; risky behaviours and a precarious social situation.ConclusionNearly a third of encounters were perceived as difficult by medical residents in our university outpatient clinic that cares for a high proportion of vulnerable patients. This represents twice the average ratio of difficult encounters in general practice. All five domains of patient vulnerability appear to have partial explanatory power on medical residents’ perception of difficult patient encounters.
Background Mental disorders are frequent in primary care settings, which is challenging for primary care physicians. In Neuchâtel (Switzerland), a Consultation-Liaison psychiatrist integrated three primary care group practices, proposing both clinical interventions and supervisions/psychiatric training. Primary care physicians’ experience regarding this collaboration was investigated. Methods A qualitative study was conducted. Three focus groups were organized in each primary care group practice involved in the project (10 primary care physicians participated in focus groups). Data were analysed with thematic content analysis. Results Six major themes emerged from our analysis, describing primary care physicians’ collaboration with psychiatrists: 1) Impact on a difficult to reach and “reluctant to consult” population; 2) Fluidity of the intraprofessional collaboration; 3) Influence on the doctor-patient relationship; 4) Positive emotional experiences; 5) Psychiatric counselling and training; 6) Long-term prospects for the project. Conclusions Consultation-Liaison psychiatrist’s presence came as a relief for participating primary care physicians, facilitating accessibility to mental healthcare, introducing a common culture of care, and offering “in-situ” psychiatric training. Primary care physicians felt that their relationships with patients benefited from such interventions, being better able to deal with complex emotional experiences and found patients more confident regarding proposed care. Models of psychiatric intervention provided in primary care must establish settings of collaboration that reinforce relationships between primary care physicians, psychiatrists, and patients.
Introduction: Psychotherapy added to usual hospital care is beneficial. This study reports on two contrasting cases, one responder and one nonresponder, from a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of intensive and brief psychodynamic psychotherapy (IBPP) for depressed inpatients, in which reduction in depressive severity was maintained for up to 1 year after completion of IBPP. We aimed to explore how the psychotherapist and patient interacted to work through the themes of focalization (described in the IBPP manual) and how their work was part of a potential process of change. Methods: This case study is part of the general framework of mixed methods in psychotherapy combining quantitative analysis of data collected in a randomized controlled trial with a qualitative case study. Results: Two general categories emerged—(1) becoming the subject of one's depression and (2) regaining a sense of support—which combine specific functions. In the first, the functions relate to interactions in line with the psychoanalytic work of mourning, which aims for an appropriation of depressive symptoms. In the second, interactions have as their functions the construction of a therapeutic space and the restoration of an epistemic trust by acknowledging the patient's melancholic state and maintaining emotional contact. Work related to regaining a sense of support was observed in both cases, whereas work related to becoming the subject of one's depression was more specific to the responder case. Discussion: These results highlight the importance of interventions that help generate a sense of support and mobilize the internal processes of symbolization, understanding, and appropriation, leading patients to develop the capacity to give meaning to their symptoms and to understand the personal psychological factors related to the depressive episode.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.