Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

O Bahrs

Publications and source records attributed to O Bahrs.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

Communication in general practice: differences between European countries.

BACKGROUND: Based on differences in national health care system characteristics such as the gatekeeping role of GPs (at the macrolevel) and on diverging GP and patient characteristics (at the microlevel), communication may differ between countries. Knowledge of the influence of these characteristics on doctor-patient communication will be important for setting European health care policies. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were (i) to compare doctor-patient communication in general practice between European countries; and (ii) to investigate the influence of the gatekeeping system and GP and patient characteristics on doctor-patient communication in general practice. METHODS: Fifteen patients per GP (in total 2825 patients) of 190 GPs in six European countries were included. Participating countries were The Netherlands, Spain, the UK (gatekeeping countries), Belgium, Germany and Switzerland (non-gatekeeping countries). Data were collected by means of patient and GP questionnaires and observation of videotaped consultations, and analysed by one-way and multilevel, multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Differences in communication between countries were found in: affective and instrumental behaviour; biomedical and psychosocial talk; GPs' patient-directed gaze; and consultation length. The study showed that GPs' gatekeeping role (with registered patients) was less important for doctor-patient communication than was expected. Patient characteristics such as gender, age, having psychosocial problems, and familiarity between the doctor and the patient were the most important in explaining differences in communication. CONCLUSION: The gatekeeping role of GPs is hardly important in explaining doctor-patient communication. The relationship is more complex than expected. Patient and GP characteristics are more important. Cultural factors should be included in future studies.

Adult↗

Doctor-patient communication in different European health care systems: relevance and performance from the patients' perspective.

Our aim is to investigate differences between European health care systems in the importance attached by patients to different aspects of doctor-patient communication and the GPs' performance of these aspects, both being from the patients' perspective. 3658 patients of 190 GPs in six European countries (Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland) completed pre- and post-visit questionnaires about relevance and performance of doctor-patient communication. Data were analyzed by variance analysis and by multilevel analysis. In the non-gatekeeping countries, patients considered both biomedical and psychosocial communication aspects to be more important than the patients in the gatekeeping countries. Similarly, in the patients' perception, the non-gatekeeping GPs dealt with these aspects more often. Patient characteristics (gender, age, education, psychosocial problems, bad health, depressive feelings, GPs' assessment of psychosocial background) showed many relationships. Of the GP characteristics, only the GPs' psychosocial diagnosis was associated with patient-reported psychosocial relevance and performance. Talking about biomedical issues was more important for the patients than talking about psychosocial issues, unless the patients presented psychosocial problems to the GP. Discrepancies between relevance and performance were apparent, especially with respect to biomedical aspects. The implications for health policy and for general practitioners are discussed.

Adolescent↗

[How do patients evaluate general practice? German results from the European Project on Patient Evaluation of General Practice Care (EUROPEP)].

German results from the European Project on Patient Evaluation of General Practice Care (EUROPEP). As part of the European collaborative study, "EUROPEP" 2224 patients in Germany (response rate 77.2%) filled in a questionnaire to evaluate their general practitioners (GP's) and the care they were delivering over the last 12 month. Overall satisfaction was high: 95.4% reported that they had no reasons to change to another GP. On a five-point scale ranging from 'excellent' to 'poor' the possibility to reach the practice on the phone was evaluated best (73.8% 'excellent') and waiting times were rated worst (31.0% 'excellent'). Also less often rated 'excellent' than other items were 'preparing the patient for what to expect from specialist or hospital care' (53.3%), 'the GP's knowledge on what s/he had done or told the patient during previous contacts' (54.3%) and 'helping the patient to deal with emotional problems related to her/his health status' (54.6%). Relevant differences between practices concerning evaluation of care and sociodemografic background of their patients were detected. Patient evaluation of care can contribute to make practices an their teams more responsive to patients needs.

Adult↗

[Case-oriented work in the quality circle].

Considering the discrepancy between scientific knowledge and definite behaviour during consultation ("performance gap"), acceptance, proceedings and case oriented work in quality circles/peer review groups are described. 79% of 138 general practitioners declared that working in quality circles should base on cases from daily practice. Exchange of experiences and the expectation to get help for solving specific problems in the daily practice are the most important motives for participating in quality circles. For one circle as an example, the process of topic and case oriented work on the basis of objective documents from the practices of the participants and the following case oriented development of guidelines are described. Finally, the implicit chances of case oriented work in quality circles are shown with respect to existing experiences.

Education, Medical, Continuing↗

[Evaluation of a training program for moderators of panel doctor quality circles: a progress assessment].

We report about the first 7 seminars of a training programme for presenters of quality circles for panel doctors. The seminars aim to train techniques of moderating a group and to give a methodological background for the work with quality circles. 65 (44.2%) of the 147 participants were general practitioners, 34 (23.1%) were internists and 32 (21.8%) were specialists of other disciplines. 16 (10.9%) were not physicians or not working as a physician. An evaluation of the seminars by a structured questionnaire showed mean ratings of 2.1 for lectures [in terms of school-marks from 1 (very good) to 6 (very poor)] and 1.8 for the work in small groups. Working atmosphere and opportunities for active participation were rated most positively. 6 months after the course, 64.9% of the participants already had arranged dates for meetings or had started with own quality circles.

Education, Medical↗

[Epilepsy and working world--summary presentation of empirical research with special reference to reality and potential for vocational rehabilitation].

Using a variety of methods (standardized and open interviewing, medical talks, ongoing counselling, expert interviews), data had been raised from almost 400 persons with epilepsy (Grand mal) of working age (16-65 yrs.), permitting their life and working situation to be characterized participant observation. The project inter alia was aimed at describing the relationship of "epilepsy and working world", to determine the extent of participation in vocational rehabilitation measures as well as their course, in order to elicit criteria pertinent for introduction of goal-directed supportive action. The study findings are outlined; a model for estimating rehabilitative need is presented; needs-based groupings are characterized, and conceptual considerations concerning vocational rehabilitation of persons with epilepsy discussed.

Adolescent↗