Literature DB >> 15087146

Is patient involvement possible when decisions involve scarce resources? A qualitative study of decision-making in primary care.

Ian Rees Jones1, Lee Berney, Moira Kelly, Len Doyal, Chris Griffiths, Gene Feder, Sheila Hillier, Gillian Rowlands, Sarah Curtis.   

Abstract

Greater patient involvement has become a key goal of health care provision. This study explored the way in which general practitioners (GPs) in the UK manage the dual responsibilities of treating individual patients and making the most equitable use of National Health Service (NHS) resources in the context of the policy of greater patient involvement in decision-making. We undertook a qualitative study incorporating a series of interviews and focus groups with a sample of 24 GPs. We analysed GP accounts of decision-making by relating these to substantive ethical principles and the key procedural principle of explicitness in decision-making. GPs saw patient involvement in positive terms but for some GPs involvement served an instrumental purpose, for instance improving patient 'compliance'. GPs identified strongly with the role of patient advocate but experienced role tensions particularly with respect to wider responsibilities for budgets, populations, and society in general. GPs had an implicit understanding of the key ethical principle of explicitness and of other substantive ethical principles but there was incongruence between these and their interpretation in practice. Limited availability of GP time played an important role in this theory/practice gap. GPs engaged in implicit categorisation of patients, legitimating this process by reference to the diversity and complexity of general practice. If patient involvement in health care decision-making is to be increased, then questions of scarcity of resources, including time, will need to be taken into account. If strategies for greater patient involvement are to be pursued then this will have significant implications for funding primary care, particularly in terms of addressing the demands made on consultation time. Good ethics and good professional practice cost money and must be budgeted for. More explicit decision-making in primary care will need to be accompanied by greater explicitness at the national level about roles and responsibilities. Increased patient involvement has consequences for GP training and ways of addressing rationing dilemmas will need to be an important part of this training. Further research is needed to understand micro-decision-making, in particular the spaces in which processes of implicit categorisation lead to distorted communication between doctor and patient. Copyright 2003 Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15087146     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  19 in total

1.  Ethical principles and the rationing of health care: a qualitative study in general practice.

Authors:  Lee Berney; Moira Kelly; Len Doyal; Gene Feder; Chris Griffiths; Ian Rees Jones
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs' attitudes to clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Benedicte Carlsen; Claire Glenton; Catherine Pope
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  The role of ethics committees and ethics consultation in allocation decisions: a 4-stage process.

Authors:  Daniel Strech; Samia Hurst; Marion Danis
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Patient involvement in clinical decision making: the effect of GP attitude on patient satisfaction.

Authors:  Benedicte Carlsen; Arild Aakvik
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  The role of economic evaluation in the decision-making process of family physicians: design and methods of a qualitative embedded multiple-case study.

Authors:  Chantale Lessard; André-Pierre Contandriopoulos; Marie-Dominique Beaulieu
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 2.497

6.  Decisions about referrals for psychological therapies: a matched-patient qualitative study.

Authors:  Stavros Stavrou; John Cape; Chris Barker
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Referral recommendations for osteoarthritis of the knee incorporating patients' preferences.

Authors:  Nyokabi Musila; Martin Underwood; Andrew W McCaskie; Nick Black; Aileen Clarke; Jan H van der Meulen
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 2.267

8.  Health systems and sustainability: doctors and consumers differ on threats and solutions.

Authors:  Jane Robertson; Emily J Walkom; David A Henry
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Bedside rationing by general practitioners: a postal survey in the Danish public healthcare system.

Authors:  Sigurd M R Lauridsen; Michael Norup; Peter Rossel
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-09-22       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Physicians' intentions and use of three patient decision aids.

Authors:  Ian D Graham; Jo Logan; Carol L Bennett; Justin Presseau; Annette M O'Connor; Susan L Mitchell; Jacqueline M Tetroe; Ann Cranney; Paul Hebert; Shawn D Aaron
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.