No abstract

(2011) Considerations made by the general practitioner when dealing with sicklisting of patients suffering from subjective and composite health

Background: Feedback on videotaped consultations is a useful way to enhance consultation skills among medical students. The method is becoming increasingly common, but is still not widely implemented in medical education. One obstacle might be that many students seem to consider this educational approach a stressful experience and are reluctant to participate. In order to improve the process and make it more acceptable to the participants, we wanted to identify possible problems experienced by students when making and receiving feedback on their video taped consultations.

ObjectiveTo explore general practitioners (GPs’) experiences from consultations when a patient’s request is denied, and outcomes of such incidents.Design and participantsWe conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured individual interviews with six GPs in Norway. We asked them to tell about experiences from specific encounters where they had refused a patient’s request. The texts were analysed with Systematic Text Condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis.Main outcome measuresAccounts of experiences from consultations when GPs refused their patients’ requests.ResultsSubjects of dispute included clinical topics like investigation and treatment, certification regarding welfare benefits and medico-legal issues, and administrative matters. The arguments took different paths, sometimes settled by reaching common ground but more often as unresolved disagreement with anger or irritation from the patient, sometimes with open hostility and violence. The aftermath and outcomes of these disputes lead to strong emotional impact where the doctors reflected upon the incidents and sometimes regretted their handling of the consultation. Some long-standing and close patient–doctor relationships were injured or came to an end.ConclusionsThe price for denying a patient’s request may be high, and GPs find themselves uncomfortable in such encounters. Skills pertaining to this particular challenge could be improved though education and training, drawing attention to negotiation of potential conflicts. Also, the notion that doctors have a professional commitment to his or her own autonomy and to society should be restored, through increased emphasis on core professional ethics in medical education at all levels.

Objectives. To explore general practitioners’ (GPs’) specific negotiation strategies regarding sick-leave issues with patients suffering from subjective health complaints. Design. Focus-group study. Setting. Nine focus-group interviews in three cities in different regions of Norway. Participants. 48 GPs (31 men, 17 women; age 32–65), participating in a course dealing with diagnostic practice and assessment of sickness certificates related to patients with subjective health complaints. Results. The GPs identified some specific strategies that they claimed to apply when dealing with the question of sick leave for patients with subjective health complaints. The first step would be to build an alliance with the patient by complying with the wish for sick leave, and at the same time searching for information to acquire the patient's perspective. This position would become the basis for the main goal: motivating the patient for a rapid return to work by pointing out the positive effects of staying at work, making legal and moral arguments, and warning against long-term sick leave. Additional solutions might also be applied, such as involving other stakeholders in this process to provide alternatives to sick leave. Conclusions and implications. GPs seem to have a conscious approach to negotiations of sickness certification, as they report applying specific strategies to limit the duration of sick leave due to subjective health complaints. This give-and-take way of handling sick-leave negotiations has been suggested by others to enhance return to work, and should be further encouraged. However, specific effectiveness of this strategy is yet to be proven, and further investigation into the actual dealings between doctor and patients in these complex encounters is needed.

Our study provides insight into the perceived barriers of returning to work and might be useful in future efforts aiming to help disability pensioners back to work.

Objective: To explore experiences motivating doctors to become and remain GPs. Design and contributors: Qualitative analysis of written responses from an open-ended question about motivational experiences posted on an internet discussion list for GPs in Norway. Texts from 25 contributors were analysed with Systematic Text Condensation, supported by theories about calling as motivation. Results: Analysis revealed numerous aspects of motivation to become and remain a general practitioner. Inspirations from early experiences and skilled role models had conveyed values and offered insight into a fascinating world of care, gratitude and respect. Close and continuous relationships with patients provided GPs with humbling experiences and learning moments. Contributors described how these encounters became rewarding sources of insight and mutual trust, improving interpersonal skills. Also, the extensive variety of tasks during the workday and the space for autonomy and independence was emphasised. Implications: Understanding motivational experiences influencing GPs' choice of medical career is necessary to develop strategies for recruitment and stability and contribute to prevention of burn-out and improper work-life balance. GPs' professional identities and commitments should be recognized and developed in dialogues between authorities and GPs to enhance communication, improve the structural frames of work environment and thereby sustainable recruitment. KEY POINTSGPs regard their choice of medical career as strongly influenced by motivational experiences in childhood, adolescence and as medical students Role models, diversity of work, feelings of being able to contribute and rewarding and continuous relationships with patients were mentioned to activate and maintain general practice commitment Knowledge about motivational influences, professional identities and commitment for GPs is crucial for medical education and dialogue to promote general practice as a career choice and prevent dangers of work overload and burnout ARTICLE HISTORY

ObjectiveGuidelines for cancer screening have been debated and are followed to varying degrees. We wanted to study whether and why doctors recommend disease-specific cancer screening to their patients.DesignOur cross-sectional survey used a postal questionnaire. The data were examined with descriptive methods and binary logistic regression.SettingWe surveyed doctors working in all health services.ParticipantsOur participants comprised a representative sample of Norwegian doctors in 2014/2015.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome is whether doctors reported recommending their patients get screening for cancers of the breast, colorectum, lung, prostate, cervix and ovaries. We examined doctors’ characteristics predicting adherence to the guidelines, including gender, age, and work in specialist or general practice. The secondary outcomes are reasons given for recommending or not recommending screening for breast and prostate cancer.ResultsOur response rate was 75% (1158 of 1545). 94% recommended screening for cervical cancer, 89% for breast cancer (both established as national programmes), 42% for colorectal cancer (upcoming national programme), 41% for prostate cancer, 21% for ovarian cancer and 17% for lung cancer (not recommended by health authorities). General practitioners (GPs) adhered to guidelines more than other doctors. Early detection was the most frequent reason for recommending screening; false positives and needless intervention were the most frequent reasons for not recommending it.ConclusionsA large majority of doctors claimed that they recommended cancer screening in accordance with national guidelines. Among doctors recommending screening contrary to the guidelines, GPs did so to a lesser degree than other specialties. Different expectations of doctors’ roles could be a possible explanation for the variations in practice and justifications. The effectiveness of governing instruments, such as guidelines, incentives or reporting measures, can depend on which professional role(s) a doctor is loyal to, and policymakers should be aware of these different roles in clinical governance.