INTRODUCTION: Internationally, a number of studies have investigated general practitioner (GP) opinion of weight management interventions. To date there have been no similar studies carried out in New Zealand. This study aimed to explore GP opinion of weight management interventions in one region of New Zealand. Understanding GP opinion is important, as rates of obesity are increasing and GPs are front-line health care service providers. The data collected could be used to guide health service development in New Zealand, and to inform training and support of GPs in obesity management. METHODS: A qualitative study using inductive thematic analysis of a series of 12 semi-structured interviews with GPs in the Wellington region of New Zealand. FINDINGS: Five key themes were identified: 1) GP perceptions of what the GP can do; 2) the roots of the obesity problem; 3) why the GP doesn’t succeed; 4) current primary care interventions; and 5) bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: The GPs interviewed felt responsible for treatment of obesity in their patients. They expressed a sense of disempowerment regarding their ability to carry this out, identifying multiple barriers. These included: a society where overweight is seen as normal; complex situations in which weight management is rooted in personal issues; stigma associated with overweight and its management; lack of efficacious interventions; and low resource availability. Bariatric surgery was viewed cautiously in general, though some examples of positive results were reported, as well as a desire for increased access to this treatment option. KEYWORDS: Body weight change; general practice; obesity; primary health care; therapy

INTRODUCTION Obesity is overtaking tobacco smoking in New Zealand as the leading potentially modifiable risk to health. International obesity guidelines recommend that health professionals opportunistically encourage weight management with their patients. However, research shows consistently low rates of weight management discussion, suggesting that health professionals may not be realising their full potential to address obesity. AIM To identify communication strategies used by General Practitioners (GPs) to open the topic of weight and weight management in routine consultations. METHODS A secondary analysis was conducted of 36 video-recorded consultations in general practices, selected for relevance from a database of 205 consultations. Content and interactional analysis was conducted in the context of the entire consultation. RESULTS The topic of weight was initiated more often by GPs than patients and was raised mostly once or twice in a consultation and occasionally as many as six times. GPs employed opportunistic strategies twice as often as they used structured strategies. DISCUSSION This study of naturally occurring consultations confirmed GPs do engage in opportunistic discussions about weight. However, such discussions are challenging and interactionally delicate. Highlighting the clinical relevance of weight appears to be effective. The high frequency of patient contact with GPs provides opportunity to reach and work with people at risk of chronic conditions associated with excess weight. Further research is required to identify suitable training and brief intervention tools for use in routine consultations that may be beneficial for both GPs and patients.

Background. There is a widely held expectation that GPs will routinely use opportunities to provide opportunistic screening and brief intervention for alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse, a major cause of preventable death and morbidity.Aim. To explore how opportunities arise for AOD discussion in GP consultations and how that advice is delivered.Design. Analysis of video-recorded primary care consultationsSetting. New Zealand General Practice.Methods. Interactional content analysis of AOD consultations between 15 GP’s and 56 patients identified by keyword search from a bank of digital video consultation recordings.Results. AOD-related words were found in almost one-third (56/171) of the GP consultation transcripts (22 female and 34 male patients). The AOD dialogue varied from brief mention to pertinent advice. Tobacco and alcohol discussion featured more often than misuse of anxiolytics, night sedation, analgesics and caffeine, with only one direct enquiry about other (unspecified) recreational drug use. Discussion was associated with interactional delicacy on the part of both doctor and patient, manifested by verbal and non-verbal discomfort, use of closed statements, understatement, wry humour and sudden topic change.Conclusions. Mindful prioritization of competing demands, time pressures, topic delicacy and the acuteness of the presenting complaint can impede use of AOD discussion opportunities. Guidelines and tools for routine screening and brief intervention in primary care do not accommodate this reality. Possible responses to enhance AOD conversations within general practice settings are discussed.

PURPOSE We undertook a study to observe in detail the primary care interactions and communications of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes over time. In addition, we sought to identify key points in the process where miscommunication might occur.METHODS All health interactions of 32 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were recorded and tracked as they moved through the New Zealand health care system for a period of approximately 6 months. Data included video recordings of patient interactions with the health professionals involved in their care (eg, general practitioners, nurses, dietitians). We analyzed data with ethnography and interaction analysis. RESULTSChallenges to effective communication in diabetes care were identified. Although clinicians showed high levels of technical knowledge and general communication skill, initial consultations were often driven by biomedical explanations out of context from patient experience. There was a perception of time pressure, but considerable time was spent with patients by health professionals repeating information that may not be relevant to patient need. Health professionals had little knowledge of what disciplines other than their own do and how their contributions to patient care may differ.CONCLUSIONS Despite current high skill levels of primary care professionals, opportunities exist to increase the effectiveness of communication and consultation in diabetes care. The various health professionals involved in patient care should agree on the length and focus of each consultation.

Family members continue to be used as interpreters in medical consultations despite the well-known risks. This paper examines participant perceptions of this practice in three New Zealand clinics chosen for their frequent use of interpreters and their skill in using them. It is based on a detailed study of 17 video-recorded interpreted consultations and 48 post-consultation interviews with participants (5 doctors, 16 patients and 12 interpreters, including 6 family members). All participants expressed satisfaction with the communication. Analysis of the interviews explored what participants liked or valued about family member interpreters (FMIs). Key themes were the FMIs' personal relationship and knowledge, patient comfort, trust, cultural norms, time efficiency and continued help outside the consultation. General practitioners (GPs) expressed awareness of potential risks and how to manage them, in contrast to patients and FMIs. Although the use of professional interpreters needs to be strongly promoted, a well-informed decision to use a family member is appropriate in some situations. GPs need to be well trained in how to assess and manage the risks. Rather than striving for 'best practice' (i.e. universal use of professional interpreters), it is better to aim for 'good practice' where a considered judgement is made about each situation on an individual basis.