30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What happens when the doctor denies a patient’s request? A qualitative interview study among general practitioners in Norway

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To explore general practitioners (GPs’) experiences from consultations when a patient’s request is denied, and outcomes of such incidents.

          Design and participants

          We 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 measures

          Accounts of experiences from consultations when GPs refused their patients’ requests.

          Results

          Subjects 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.

          Conclusions

          The 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: a critical review.

          Doctor/patient interaction has been the object of various reform efforts in Western countries since the 1960s. It has consistently been depicted as enacting relationships of dominance or oppression. Most younger medical practitioners have received interaction skills training during their professional education, intended to encourage more equal forms of consultation behaviour. However, the evidence that 'patient-centredness' has a positive impact on health outcomes is at best mixed. At the same time, empirical studies of consultations point to the remarkable persistence of asymmetry. These two factors together suggest that asymmetry may have roots that are inaccessible to training programmes in talking practices. Illustrating our argument with findings from conversation analytic studies of doctor/patient interaction, we suggest that asymmetry lies at the heart of the medical enterprise: it is founded in what doctors are there for. As such, we argue that both critical and consumerist analysts and reformers have crucially misunderstood the role and nature of medicine. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Teaching communication skills to medical students, a challenge in the curriculum?

            As communication skills become more and more important in medical practice, the new medical curriculum at Ghent University (1999) implemented a communication curriculum. Communication training or experiences in 'real life' settings are provided every year of the medical curriculum. The training starts with simple basic skills but gradually slips into medical communication or consultation training and results in communication in different contextual situations or with special groups of patients. Rehearsal is important and seen as inevitable. Poorly performing students get extra training. Several didactical methods are used: the skills are demonstrated by means of videotapes and paper cases of patient stories. Skills are trained in small groups (10-15 students), with focus on role-playing with colleague students or simulated patients (SP). Videotapes of real consultations give an idea of the performance of each student. Every year the students are assessed by means of an OSCE (objective structured clinical examination). After 6 years of experience with the new curriculum, several remarks and questions need to be answered. Small group training gives a huge workload and with different trainers discrepancies between groups can appear. Choosing the most suitable trainer for communication skills is not easy; several options are available: specialists in communication like psychologists with interest in medical practice, GPs with interest in medical communication, medical specialists for communication topics concerning medical problems within their domain. As the most important didactical approach lies in practising the skills, the selection and training of simulated patients remains a challenge. A communication continuum during the whole curriculum seems to be worthwhile. Students with specific communicative problems are detected early, remediation is provided. Rehearsal every year seems to lead to better acquisition. The most positive point is that communication is embedded in a global patient-, student- and community-oriented curriculum and that communication skills are seen as core elements of good doctoring.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              "Saying no is no easy matter" A qualitative study of competing concerns in rationing decisions in general practice

              Background The general practitioner in Norway is expected to ensure equity and effectiveness through fair rationing. At the same time, due to recent reforms of the Norwegian health care sector, both the role of economic incentives and patient autonomy have been strengthened. Studies indicate that modern general practitioners, both in Norway and in other countries are uncomfortable with the gatekeeper role, but there is little knowledge about how general practitioners experience rationing in practice. Methods Through focus group interviews with Norwegian general practitioners, we explore physicians' attitudes toward factors of influence on medical decision making and how rationing dilemmas are experienced in everyday practice. Results Four major concerns appeared in the group discussions: The obligation to ration health care, professional autonomy, patient autonomy, and competition. A central finding was that the physicians find rationing difficult because saying no in face to face relations often is felt uncomfortable and in conflict with other important objectives for the general practitioner. Conclusion It is important to understand the association between using economic incentives in the management of health care, increasing patient autonomy, and the willingness among physicians to contribute to efficient, fair and legitimate resource allocation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Scand J Prim Health Care
                Scand J Prim Health Care
                IPRI
                Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care
                Taylor & Francis
                0281-3432
                1502-7724
                June 2017
                05 June 2017
                : 35
                : 2
                : 201-207
                Affiliations
                [a ]Research Unit for General Practice, Uni Research Health, Bergen, Norway;
                [b ]Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway;
                [c ]The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                Author notes
                CONTACT Stein Nilsen nilsen.stein@ 123456gmail.com Research Unit for General Practice, Uni Research Health, Kalfarveien 31, N-5018 Bergen, Norway
                Article
                ipri-35-201
                10.1080/02813432.2017.1333309
                5499321
                28581878
                c4a02ecb-1de0-4d53-903c-b376645a4300
                © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 December 2016
                : 01 February 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Norwegian College of General Practice
                Categories
                Research Articles

                family practice,disputes,decision-making,shared,doctor patient relation,personal autonomy,professional autonomy,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article