Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J J Rethans

Publications and source records attributed to J J Rethans.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Effect of a short skills training course on competence and performance in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of the efficacy of a short course of technical clinical skills to change performance in general practice. DESIGN: Subjects were self-selected general practitioners (n=59) who were unaware of the study design. They were assigned to the intervention group (n=31) or control group (n=28) according to their preference for course date. The course covered four different technical clinical skills (shoulder injection technique, PAP-smear, laboratory examination of vaginal discharge, ophthalmoscopic control in diabetes mellitus). Main outcome measures used were pre- and post-training scores on a knowledge test of skills (60 multiple choice items), and pre- and post-training performance of procedures in practice using a log-diary covering 20 days. SETTING: University of Maastricht, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Self-selected general practitioners. RESULTS: Competence, as measured by the knowledge test of skills, improved significantly as a result of the training and skills test scores were satisfactory after training. A significant effect on performance in practice was found for PAP-smear and shoulder injection technique, whereas no effect could be demonstrated for examination of vaginal discharge and ophthalmoscopic control in diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: A good degree of competence is a necessary but not always sufficient condition for a physician to change his performance in practice. While some skills training seems adequate to bring about desired changes, for other skills more complex interventions are probably needed.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗
PubMed1999

The NECTAR-study: development of nutrition modules for general practice vocational training; determinants of nutrition guidance practices of GP-trainees. Nutrition Education by Computerized Training And Research.

OBJECTIVE: To identify determinants of nutrition guidance practices of general practitioner-trainees (GP-trainees), to investigate whether these determinants differ from those found by experienced general practitioners; to reveal educational directions towards the development of computer-based instruction on nutrition. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study by means of validated questionnaires. SUBJECTS: All GP-trainees in training at the eight university departments for vocational training in the Netherlands in September, 1998 (n = 985). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reliability of determinants of nutrition guidance practices was calculated by means of Crohnbach's alpha. The mechanism of action of determinants was identified by means of linear structural relationship analysis (LISREL) using a model developed for GPs. RESULTS: Crohnbach's alphas for factors ranged from 0.58-0.90. The empirical GP-trainee-data fitted with the corresponding GP-model on the mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: The same predisposing factors, driving forces and barriers as found with GPs were identified with GP-trainees. Comparing the GP-and GP-trainee-models, only minor differences were found in the path coefficients between factors. Lack of nutrition training and education proved to be of great influence on the extent of nutrition information given. The GP-trainee-model will be of use in developing computer-based instruction on nutrition. It is expected that GPs may also benefit from this instruction.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1999

Assessment in general practice: the predictive value of written-knowledge tests and a multiple-station examination for actual medical performance in daily practice.

This study compares the predictive values of written-knowledge tests and a standardized multiple-station examination for the actual medical performance of general practitioners (GPs) in order to select effective assessment methods to be used in quality-improvement activities. A comprehensive assessment was performed in four phases. First, 100 GPs from the southern part of the Netherlands were assessed by a general medical knowledge test and by a knowledge test on technical skills. Second, in order to check for time-order effects, participants were randomly divided into two groups of 50 each, comparable on scores of both knowledge tests and on professional characteristics. Finally, both groups went through a multiple station examination using standardized patients and a practice video assessment of real surgery, but in opposite orders. Consultations were videotaped and assessed by well-trained peer observers. The drop-out rate was 10%. In both groups the predictive value of medical knowledge tests, ranging from 0.43 to 0.56 (Pearson correlation disattenuated), proved to be comparable with the predictive value of the multiple-station examination for actual performance (0.33-0.59). The overall explained variance of scores of the practice video assessment, measured by multiple regression analysis with performance scores as dependent variables and scores on the knowledge tests and the multiple-station examination as independent variables was moderate (19%). A time-order effect showed in only one direction: from practice video assessment to the multiple-station examination. The GP's professional characteristics did not contribute to the explanation of variation in performance. Medical knowledge tests can predict actual clinical performance to the same extent as a multiple-station examination. Compared with a station examination, a knowledge test may be a good alternative method for assessment the procedures of a large number of practising GPs.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1999

Assessment of general practitioners by video observation of communicative and medical performance in daily practice: issues of validity, reliability and feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a video assessment method for General Practitioners (GPs) by analysing issues of validity, reliability and feasibility of observation of videotaped regular consultations. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study consultations of 93 GPs were video recorded in the practice during 1 week. The GPs registered consultation and patient data in a logbook; 16 consultations per GP were selected using preset criteria. The quality of communicative and medical performance of these consultations was assessed by GP observers with a validated instrument. The validity of the procedure was evaluated by checking the content of each GP's sample using specific sample criteria. Selection bias was estimated by multiple regression analysis, with sample characteristics as independent variables and scores on communication and medical performance as dependent variables. The influence of observation on GPs and patients was assessed by a questionnaire. Generalizability theory was used to estimate reliability. Feasibility was assessed by conducting a questionnaire, by keeping accounts, and by checking the technical quality of the videotaped consultations. SETTING: Universities of Nijmegen and Maastricht, The Netherlands. SUBJECTS: General Practitioners (GPs). RESULTS: The domain of general practice was well covered in the samples; content validity was satisfactory. With regard to the sample characteristics, only the total duration of consultations appeared to correlate significantly with both the score on communication and the score on medical performance. A majority (71%) of GPs reported not being influenced by the observation, except in the first cases, and recognizing their usual daily performance in the videotaped consultations. An acceptable level of reliability was reached after 2.5 hours of observation, i.e. 12 cases by a single observer. The method was well accepted by both GPs and patients. The costs were pound250 per GP. CONCLUSIONS: Video assessment of GPs in daily practice according to the procedures described is a valid and reliable method, one which is useful for education and quality improvement. There is a trade-off between feasibility on one hand and validity, reliability and credibility on the other hand. Compared to investments in observation methods in standardized settings, the costs of video observation of GPs' actual performance are acceptable.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1999

Assessment of practicing family physicians: comparison of observation in a multiple-station examination using standardized patients with observation of consultations in daily practice.

PURPOSE: Looking for a valid, reliable, and feasible method to collect data on the performances of practicing family physicians, the authors compare the measurement characteristics of a multiple-station examination (MSE) using standardized patients with those of a video assessment of regular consultations in daily practice (practice video assessment, PVA). METHOD: In a cross-sectional study, consultations of 90 family physicians were videotaped both in an MSE and in their daily practices. Peer-observers used a validated instrument (MAAS-Global) to assess the physicians' communication with patients and their medical performances. The physicians were randomly divided into two groups, comparable for demographic characteristics, and half underwent the assessments in reverse order to test for time-order effects. Content validity, criterion validity, reliability, and feasibility of the two methods were compared. RESULTS: Content validity of the PVA was superior to that of the MSE, since the domain of general family practice care was better covered. Observed participants judged the videotaped practice consultations to be "natural," whereas hardly any family physician, after reviewing the videotaped consultations of the MSE, recognized his or her usual working style. Specific criteria made it possible to standardize real practice. Concerning criterion validity, only the medical-performance components of the two methods correlated. No correlation was found for the communication components. Real-practice performance proved to be less influenced by observation than was performance during the MSE. The reliabilities of the two methods, expected to be better in the controlled MSE, were comparable. The administration of the PVA was more flexible, less costly, and better accepted by the family physicians than was that of the MSE. CONCLUSION: Assessment for quality improvement of family physicians' practices by video observation in daily practice is superior to video assessment in a simulated setting using standardized patients.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Structure and process: the relationship between practice management and actual clinical performance in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: The precise relationship between practice management (structure) and the doctor's actual performance (process) in general practice is tenuous. Analysis of their mutual relationship may yield insight into the way they contribute to outcome and into corresponding assessment procedures. METHOD: In a cross-sectional study, consultations of 93 GPs were videotaped in their own practice and assessed by peer-observers on medical performance and on communication with patients, followed by a practice visit by a non-physician observer using a validated Visitation Instrument to assess Practice management and organization (VIP). Pearson correlations (observed and disattenuated for unreliability of the instruments) between scores on 22 practice management dimensions and scores of 16 selected cases on medical performance and communication were calculated. The predictive value of specific practice management aspects for actual performance was determined by multiple regression analysis, with performance scores as dependent variables and scores on the 22 management dimensions and GPs' professional characteristics as independent variables. RESULTS: Nine practice management dimensions correlated significantly with medical performance and so did five dimensions with actual communication. Overall, most associations were weak. Combined with demographic variables (age for medical performance and working single-handedly for communication), 26% of variance in medical performance scores could be explained by only three practice management dimensions. One practice dimension (delegation of medical tasks to the practice assistant) explained 11% of variance in communication with patients. Organization of quality assessment activities explained most of the variation in medical performance. CONCLUSIONS: Practice management (structure) and actual performance (process) seem to be largely autonomous constructs. Quality improvement and assessment activities should emphasize that practice management is different from actual performance. Structure and process may contribute to patient outcome independently of each other.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Do general practitioners act consistently in real practice when they meet the same patient twice? Examination of intradoctor variation using standardised (simulated) patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation within individual general practitioners facing the same problem twice in actual practice under unbiased conditions. DESIGN: General practitioners were consulted during normal surgery hours by a standardised patient portraying a patient with angina pectoris. Six weeks later the same general practitioners were consulted again by a similar standardised patient portraying a similar case. The patients reported on the consultations. SETTING: Trondheim, Norway. SUBJECTS: Of 87 general practitioners invited by letter, 28 (32%) agreed to participate without hesitation; nine others (10%) wanted more information before consenting. From these 24 were selected and visited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of actions undertaken from a guideline in both rounds of consultations. Duration of consultations. RESULTS: The mean (range, interquartile range) guideline score, total score, and duration of consultation were not significantly different between the first and second patient encounters for the group as a whole. For individual doctors the mean (SD) difference was -0.09 (3.36) for the guideline score, 0.30 (8.1) for the total score, and -0.87 (9.01) for consultation time. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that assessment of performance in real practice for a group of general practitioners is consistent from the first round of consultations to the second round. However, significant variation occurs in performance of individual physicians.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1997

The use of standardized patients in research in general practice.

Standardized patients (SPs) are simulated patients or actual patients who have been carefully coached to present their illness in a standardized way. Much is known about the use of standardized patients in medical education. This article reviews advantages and disadvantages, reliability and validity of the use of standardized patients in general practice and primary care research. Performance in general practice can be measured with direct or indirect methods. With direct methods the physician-patient contact is directly observed or heard. Indirect methods are seldom complete and seldom accurate and therefore often invalid. Direct methods (observation, video, audiotapes, etc.) have face validity, but nevertheless have shortcomings. The SP method can mainly avoid the disadvantages of the other methods. The presentation of the case by the SP is accurate. The judgement of physician's behaviour during the consultation by the SP is accurate and reliable. SPs are generally believable. Less than one in five SPs is detected by the physicians, so the method has face validity. To obtain sufficient reliability and validity, a thorough selection and training of SPs is required, as is careful organization with an eye for detail. The SP method also has some important shortcomings. The method is time and work demanding, limiting the number of physicians that can be measured. In addition, measurement is usually limited to one consultation. In reality, however, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are often spread over several consultations. This 'first-visit-bias' hampers conclusive answering of some research questions.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1997

Educational objectives and requirements of an undergraduate clerkship in general practice. The outcome of a consensus procedure.

OBJECTIVES: The main aim of this study was to reach consensus between students, faculty and general practice teachers on the educational objectives and requirements of the clerkship in general practice. METHOD: The consensus procedure consisted of four steps and all active general practice teachers (n = 116) were asked to participate in the study. RESULTS: We identified 189 educational objectives: 127 complaints (problems, symptoms, syndromes), 29 clinical skills and 37 objectives concerning the theoretical dimensions of general practice. Educational requirements crystallized to 16 essential preconditions of a teaching practice and 35 didactic activities to be performed by the general practice teachers. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus results will be used to structure the medical curriculum and as guidelines for the educational process during the clerkship.

Australia↗
PubMed1997

Management of patients with angina pectoris by GPs: a study with standardized (simulated) patients in actual practice.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the management of patients with angina pectoris by GPs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess how a group of GPs managed a patient with angina pectoris complaints in a real-life practice setting during unbiased consultations with standardized patients. METHODS: GPs were consulted during normal surgery hours by a standardized patient portraying a patient with angina pectoris. The setting was Trondheim, Norway. All 87 GPs in the city of Trondheim (Norway) were informed by letter about a study with standardized patients and invited to take part. They were asked to give consent to be visited during actual surgery hours by standardized patients. The date, number and content of the visits planned were not mentioned. They were not told that the study focused on angina pectoris. For budgetary reasons it was decided to ask 24 physicians to participate. The GPs were consulted during normal surgery hours by a standardized patient portraying a patient with angina pectoris. The patients reported on the consultations using a checklist based on guidelines for management of angina pectoris. Outcome measures were the content and number of actions undertaken from the guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-eight GPs (32%) agreed to participate. Of these, 24 were selected and visited. One doctor detected the standardized patient. The results showed that the participating physicians met 76% of the guidelines used. However, the GPs ordered 31 different types of laboratory test (mean = 7.9, range = 1-18 per physician). In addition, the 23 consultations resulted in seven referrals (two for chest X-rays, four for an exercise test and one referral to a specialist in cardiology). Twenty-two of the 23 doctors made the correct diagnosis and informed the patient accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: When assessed in an unbiased situation in real practice, GPs performed well against a pre-set standard for management of angina pectoris patients. Much variation was found in the request for laboratory tests. These real-life practice data suggest that there is a need for discussing guidelines for effective ordering of laboratory tests in general practice.

Aged↗
PubMed1996

[Various opinions of family physicians and rheumatologists about the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis].

OBJECTIVE: To make an inventory of the opinions about professional duties and of the cooperation of general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists in the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), after the publication of the standard 'Rheumatoid arthritis' issued by the Dutch College of General Practitioners in 1994. DESIGN: Descriptive. SETTING: Maastricht University, the Netherlands. METHOD: Information was collected by means of a written questionnaire submitted to a random sample of 500 GPs and all 148 (assistant) rheumatologists in the Netherlands, and by means of focus group interviews with GPs, rheumatologists and RA patients. This information focused on the opinion of both groups of professionals on their professional duties in diagnosis and management of RA, existing models of cooperation, the satisfaction with mutual consultations, experienced problems and possibilities to improve cooperation. RESULTS: Substantial differences existed between both groups of professionals in their views on the duties of the GP and the rheumatologist respectively, in the care of RA patients. GPs tended to an expectative policy in cases of suspected or even diagnosed RA, whereas rheumatologists preferred early referral. Hardly any cooperation model was found with agreements committed to paper on the mutual duties regarding RA patients. CONCLUSION: Inadequate mutual contacts and inadequate insight of both parties into each other's abilities appeared to be major problems impeding improvement of the mutual communication. Both groups recognized the need to improve the mutual cooperation.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Methods for quality assessment in general practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is now a wide variety of methods available to general practitioners who want to engage in quality assessment, quality assurance, or quality improvement activities in their practices. These methods require some kind of performance review, or at least the collection of some performance-related data. As in traditional research, the choice of methods depends on what research questions one wants to address. This paper elaborates on some key concepts related to the choice of methods, making a distinction between whether any method actually covers performance (what a doctor does in daily practice) or competence (what a doctor is capable of doing) as well as a distinction between whether a method is direct (patient-doctor contact is observable) or is indirect. METHOD: An overview frame will be presented of the methods most commonly used for data collection within quality assessment. These methods are discussed on their validity, reliability, feasibility and acceptability. Direct methods aimed at recording performance are assumed to hold the highest validity, but practical, economic and logistic factors may favour less ambitious methods for audit or quality improvement activities. CONCLUSIONS: One crucial element in all methods is creating a set of empirical data, as a basis for comparisons, reflection, dialogue and discussions among colleagues.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1996

Performance-based assessment in continuing medical education for general practitioners: construct validity.

The use of performance-based assessment has been extended to postgraduate education and practising doctors, despite criticism of validity. While differences in expertise at this level are easily reflected in scores on a written test, these differences are relatively small on performance-based tests. However, scores on written tests and performance-based tests of clinical competence generally show moderate correlations. A study was designed to evaluate construct validity of a performance-based test for technical clinical skills in continuing medical education for general practitioners, and to explore the correlation between performance and knowledge of specific skills. A 1-day skills training was given to 71 general practitioners, covering four different technical clinical skills. The effect of the training on performance was measured with a performance-based test using a randomized controlled trial design, while the effect on knowledge was measured with a written test administered 1 month before and directly after the training. A training effect could be shown by the performance-based test for all four clinical skills. The written test also demonstrated a training effect for all but one skill. However, correlations between scores on the written test and on the performance-based test were low for all skills. It is concluded that construct validity of a performance-based test for technical clinical skills of general practitioners was demonstrated, while the knowledge test score was shown to be a poor predictor of competence for specific technical skills.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

[Standardized patients in general practice--a new method for quality assurance in Noway].

Standardized patients were sent to general practitioners who use the patient list system in Trondheim in order to register daily clinical practice without the patient being unmasked. The authors explain what a standardized patient is, how they are taught to present a disease, and how they report on the consultation in a valid and reliable way. They also describe how the standardized patients were introduced into the doctors' patient list system. The doctors were informed about the project in advance. Twenty-three doctors were visited twice and one doctor was visited once by a standardized patient. At two of the visits the patient was unmasked. The conclusion is that the use of standardized patients is a valid, reliable and practical method for quality assurance in general practice in Norway.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1995

Assessment of competence in technical clinical skills of general practitioners.

Technical clinical procedures constitute an important part of the work of general practitioners. Assessment of competence in the relevant skills is important from the perspective of quality assurance. In this study, the psychometric characteristics of three different methods for assessment of competence in technical clinical skills in general practice were evaluated. A performance-based test (8 stations), a written knowledge test of skills (125 items) and a self-assessment questionnaire (41 items) on technical clinical skills were administered to 49 GPs and 47 trainees in general practice. The mean scores on the performance-based test and the written knowledge test of skills showed no substantial differences between GPs and trainees, whereas the GPs scored higher on the self-assessment questionnaire. While the correlation of the score on the knowledge test of skills with the score on the performance-based test was moderately high, the score on the self-assessment questionnaire showed a rather low correlation with the performance-based test. Although performance-based testing is obviously the best method to assess proficiency in hands-on skills, a written test can serve as a reasonable alternative, particularly for screening and research purposes.

Clinical Competence↗