Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Glyn Elwyn

Publications and source records attributed to Glyn Elwyn.

63 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Appraisal of family doctors: an evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Appraisal has evolved to become a key component of workforce management. However, it is not clear from existing proposals for appraisal of doctors whether employers, health authorities or primary care organisations should take responsibility for appraisal processes. AIMS: To evaluate the introduction of a pilot peer appraisal system in general practice and to gain insight into the reactions of appraisers and doctors. DESIGN OF STUDY: Semi-structured telephone interviews combined with participant surveys and documentary analysis. SETTING: Five health authorities in Wales. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners (GPs) appointed as appraisers and volunteer practitioners (doctors). METHOD: Twenty-six appraisers were appointed and given training in the appraisal process, each appraising an average of eight individuals. Appraisers and appraised doctors participated in semi-structured telephone interviews and completed separate participant questionnaires. RESULTS: GPs willingly undertook peer appraisal in a volunteer-based pilot study where participation was recompensed. The majority of participating clinicians were positive, with appraisers reporting the most gain. Appraisers were enthusiastic, provided the process remained non-judgemental and did not threaten or burden their colleagues. Appraised doctors were less enthusiastic but the most significant perceived benefit was the opportunity to reflect on individual performance with a supportive colleague. There were, however, repeated concerns about time, confusion with revalidation and personal development plans, worries about including health and probity queries, and an opinion that the process would be entirely different if conducted with non-volunteers or by representatives of 'management'. CONCLUSION: This study illustrated three fundamental problems for appraisal systems in general practice. First, there is as yet no organisational hierarchy in general practice. Perhaps the aggregation of practices into primary care organisations will generate a hierarchy. Second, the question of who conducts appraisals then becomes pertinent; this study illustrates a professionally-led peer appraisal model. Third, the spectre of summative assessment causes problems in appraisal schemes. Typically, only mutually agreed summaries are kept for future use in appraisal systems (for example, for promotion or discipline). So the proposal to use GP annual appraisal documentation as the basis of a summative 'revalidation' exercise is at odds with orthodox personnel practice, which regards appraisal as a formative process.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Deconstructing patient centred communication and uncovering shared decision making: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Patient centred communication (PCC) has been described as a method for doctor-patient communication. The principles of shared decision making (SDM) have been proposed more recently. AIMS: This study aimed to examine PCC and SDM empirically with respect to their mutual association, the variation in practitioners' working styles, and the associations with patient characteristics. METHODS: Sixty general practitioners recruited 596 adult patients who gave written consent to have their consultations videotaped. The tapes were assessed by two researchers, using a standardised instrument for global communication. For the purpose of this exploratory study, scales for PCC and SDM were based on subsamples of items in the MAAS. RESULTS: The scales for PCC and SDM were weakly associated (Pearson correlation: 0.25). Physicians varied more on SDM than on PCC. The intracluster correlation of the PCC and SDM scales were, respectively, 0.34 and 0.19. However, hypotheses regarding associations with patient characteristics were not confirmed. Neither PCC nor SDM scores were related to patient gender, education, age, functional health status or existence of chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that PCC and SDM can be differentiated and comprise approaches to communication between clinicians and patients which may be more clearly distinguished by further focused research and training developments.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Using simulated consultations to develop communications skills for neurology trainees.

Communication skills are essential for clinical medicine yet, unlike in general practice, trainees in specialist and general medicine are not formally trained in them. We have used videotaped recording of simulated consultations to evaluate their acceptability and usefulness for training neurology specialist registrars. Twelve specialist registrars in neurology participated; their perceptions of the method were assessed using quantified scales and focus groups. All but one of the 12 trainees found the exercise useful both for improving clinical skills and for the imparting of information. The median visual analogue scores (0=useless, 100=very useful) for history taking and for imparting information were 91 and 90%, respectively. The median scores [and interquartile range (IQR)] of perceived usefulness for communication skills increased before to after (for use of video) from 68 (58-78) to 88 (80-92)% (P < 0.02), and (for use of simulated patients) from 51 (40-71) to 86 (79-89)% (P < 0.02). The focus groups provided additional qualitative data supporting the technique. We conclude that videotaped consultations with simulated patients are valued by most neurology trainees, both for improving their history-taking skills and for imparting information. The technique could be used more widely in neurology training, and may have a role in assessment.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Learning to plan? A critical fiction about the facilitation of professional and practice development plans in primary care.

A shift from continuing medical education towards professional and organisational development policies, coupled with the introduction of accountability frameworks (clinical governance), has generated interest in professional and practice development plans (PPDPs) in general practice. The problems of implementing this change in an independent contractor-based service remain unexplored and the aims of this study were to focus on the facilitator's experience of the issues that hampered or fostered development in general practice. Facilitators of PPDPs were asked to document their experience of supporting 12 practices in an all Wales feasibility study. In order to maintain organisational anonymity while reporting accurate accounts of the obstacles encountered, a method known as critical fiction was employed. This method allowed the authors to write detailed reflective accounts that were then fictionalised. The culture of general practice reflects the development of an independent contractor service that has developed into partnerships that employ some professionals (practice nurses, managers and administrative staff) and collaborate with others in variable arrangements (community nurses, health visitors, midwives and others). Developing organisation-wide systems in so-called 'primary health care teams' is a difficult exercise, given the ethos of autonomous decision-making processes and the lack of experience of 'whole systems' approaches in primary care. The potential for multiprofessional synergy and the evidence that systematic changes lead to sustained health care improvements are well established. But the implementation issues of these concepts have not been addressed. Existing educational policies are based in uniprofessional paradigms and the protected time requirements and funding streams required for PPDPs have not been clarified.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

Reactions of GPs to a triage-controlled referral system for cancer genetics.

BACKGROUND: The demand for genetic services is increasing as public awareness about 'predictive' tests increases and commercial marketing initiatives develop. In the UK, genetic services vary widely between regions. To manage demand, an all-Wales cancer genetics service based on telephone triage and referral guidelines was designed and implemented. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the reactions of GPs to a cancer genetics service controlled by referral guidelines and a triage system, and the perceived impact genetics will have on general practice. METHODS: We conducted a structured qualitative study in primary care using sequential focus group discussions with 14 GPs, representing 12 practices divided into two groups (service providers and educationalists). The doctors were introduced to the 'new' genetics, briefed about the service and the referral guidelines and given an outline of the topics to be discussed. All discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed. RESULTS: The GPs in this study had not considered how they and their teams would handle the practical implications of the 'new' genetics. They had no major objections to a triage system as a means of regulating access to a scarce specialist service, but were concerned about two issues. First, that an insistence on the completion of a postal questionnaire as a means of obtaining an initial assessment could disadvantage some individuals and, secondly, that it was not clear to either the GP or the patient that the risk assessment would be undertaken by a telephone interview. Although there was some concern about yet another set of referral guidelines, participants accepted that the potential demand for cancer genetics services had to be regulated. CONCLUSION: The acceptance by GPs of this triage system represented a reluctant acknowledgement that primary care, in its present organizational form, cannot provide high quality genetic counselling. However, the realization that this represented a relinquishment of the normal generalist role led to the emergence of ambivalence and a wish to consider how best to accommodate this new need in primary care.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

What do patients want from high-quality general practice and how do we involve them in improvement?

Patient involvement is being encouraged by the government and by others as a way of improving the quality of the service provided in general practice. Patients can be involved in their own individual care; for example, in treatment decision making and in disease management; or collectively, by providing feedback on aspects of practice organisation and quality. Active participation in treatment decisions and in self management of chronic conditions can benefit patients in the short-term and may lead to better health outcomes in the longer term, although the evidence for this is currently equivocal. However, the ethical and societal arguments in its favour seem overwhelming. Helping patients to help themselves makes sense for general practitioners as well. Strengthening patients' coping skills could help to reduce inappropriate demands on their time. Involving the public in quality improvement activities has become a key policy direction, and trusts will be required to survey their patients on an annual basis. The proposed new general practitioner contract has recognised the importance of the patient's perspective in its quality framwork. Practices that want to anticipate these trends should look for patient survey instruments to obtain feedback on their organisation and the interpersonal skills of the clinicians.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1999

Is 'shared decision-making' feasible in consultations for upper respiratory tract infections? Assessing the influence of antibiotic expectations using discourse analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the discourse of consultations in which conflict occurs between parents and clinicians about the necessity of antibiotics to treat an upper respiratory tract infection. To appraise the feasibility of shared decision-making in such consultations. DESIGN: A qualitative study using discourse analysis techniques. SETTING: A general practice with 12 500 patients in an urban area of Cardiff, Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Two consultations were purposively selected from a number of audiotaped sessions. The consultations took place during normal clinics in which appointments are booked at 7-minute intervals. The practitioner is known to be interested in involving patients in treatment decisions. METHOD: Discourse analysis was employed to examine the consultation transcripts. This analysis was then compared with the theoretical competencies proposed for 'shared decision-making'. RESULTS: The consultations exhibit less rational strategies than those suggested by the shared decision-making model. Strong parental views are expressed (overtly and covertly) which seem derived from prior experiences of similar illnesses and prescribing behaviours. The clinician responds by emphasizing the 'normality' of upper respiratory tract infections and their recurrence, accompanied by expressions that antibiotic treatment is ineffective in 'viral' illness - the suggested diagnosis. The competencies of 'shared decision-making' are not exhibited. CONCLUSIONS: The current understanding of shared decision-making needs to be developed for those situations where there are dis-agreements due to the strongly held views of the participants. Clinicians have limited strategies in situations where patient treatment preferences are opposed to professional views. Dispelling 'misconceptions' by sharing information and negotiating agreed management plans are recommended. But it seems that communication skills, information content and consultation length have to receive attention if such strategies are to be employed successfully.

Journal Article↗