Literature DB >> 27528710

Calling the GP surgery: patient burden, patient satisfaction, and implications for training.

Elizabeth Stokoe1, Rein O Sikveland1, Jon Symonds2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Good communication is central to the effectiveness of GP service provision, as well as to patient satisfaction with surgeries, but very little is known about the actual communication that occurs between patients and surgeries. AIM: This study was carried out to examine, for the first time, how receptionists interact with patients on the telephone, to identify features of communication associated with efficacy and patient satisfaction. DESIGN AND
SETTING: A qualitative conversation analysis of incoming patient telephone calls, recorded 'for training purposes', in three English GP surgeries.
METHOD: Data were analysed qualitatively to identify effective communication, then coded to establish the relative prevalence of communication types across each surgery.
RESULTS: Analysis identified a burden on patients to drive calls forward and achieve service. 'Patient burden' occurred when receptionists failed to offer alternatives to patients whose initial requests could not be met, or to summarise relevant next actions (for example, appointment, call-back, or other query) at the end of calls. Coding revealed that 'patient burden' frequency differed across the services. Increased 'patient burden' was associated with decreased satisfaction on published satisfaction survey scores.
CONCLUSION: Patients in some practices have to push for effective service when calling GP surgeries. Conversation analysis specifies what constitutes (in)effective communication. Findings can then underpin receptionist training and improve patient experience and satisfaction. © British Journal of General Practice 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  communication; evaluation; general practice; medical receptionist; patient satisfaction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27528710      PMCID: PMC5072915          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X686653

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  9 in total

1.  Patient feedback for quality improvement in general practice.

Authors:  Angela Coulter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-02-18

2.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  The place of receptionists in access to primary care: Challenges in the space between community and consultation.

Authors:  Pat M Neuwelt; Robin A Kearns; Annette J Browne
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Front desk talk: discourse analysis of receptionist-patient interaction.

Authors:  Heather Hewitt; Lucy McCloughan; Brian McKinstry
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  What patients want.

Authors:  Jozien Bensing; Michela Rimondini; Adriaan Visser
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2013-03

6.  Slaying the dragon myth: an ethnographic study of receptionists in UK general practice.

Authors:  Jonathan Hammond; Katja Gravenhorst; Emma Funnell; Susan Beatty; Derek Hibbert; Jonathan Lamb; Heather Burroughs; Marija Kovandžić; Mark Gabbay; Christopher Dowrick; Linda Gask; Waquas Waheed; Carolyn A Chew-Graham
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Drivers of overall satisfaction with primary care: evidence from the English General Practice Patient Survey.

Authors:  Charlotte A M Paddison; Gary A Abel; Martin O Roland; Marc N Elliott; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; John L Campbell
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Receptionist input to quality and safety in repeat prescribing in UK general practice: ethnographic case study.

Authors:  Deborah Swinglehurst; Trisha Greenhalgh; Jill Russell; Michelle Myall
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-11-03

9.  The role of patient experience surveys in quality assurance and improvement: a focus group study in English general practice.

Authors:  Olga Boiko; John L Campbell; Natasha Elmore; Antoinette F Davey; Martin Roland; Jenni Burt
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.377

  9 in total
  7 in total

1.  Conversations, and how we end them.

Authors:  Elizabeth Stokoe
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Technology-Enhanced Consultations in Diabetes, Cancer, and Heart Failure: Protocol for the Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) Project.

Authors:  Sara E Shaw; Deborah Cameron; Joseph Wherton; Lucas M Seuren; Shanti Vijayaraghavan; Satyajit Bhattacharya; Christine A'Court; Joanne Morris; Trisha Greenhalgh
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2018-07-31

3.  Satisfaction of 30 402 callers to a medical helpline of the Emergency Medical Services Copenhagen: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Nienke Doreen Zinger; Stig Nikolaj Blomberg; Freddy Lippert; Helle Collatz Christensen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Comparison of Access to Primary Care Medical and Dental Appointments Between Simulated Patients Who Were Deaf and Patients Who Could Hear.

Authors:  Elizabeth Schniedewind; Ryan P Lindsay; Steven Snow
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-01-04

5.  Urgent assessment and ongoing care for infection in community-dwelling older people: a qualitative study of patient experience.

Authors:  Abigail Moore; Sara McKelvie; Margaret Glogowska; Daniel S Lasserson; Gail Hayward
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  First point of contact physiotherapy; a qualitative study.

Authors:  Rob Goodwin; Fiona Moffatt; Paul Hendrick; Stephen Timmons; Neil Chadborn; Pip Logan
Journal:  Physiotherapy       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 3.358

7.  Receptionists' role in new approaches to consultations in primary care: a focused ethnographic study.

Authors:  Heather Dawn Brant; Helen Atherton; Annemieke Bikker; Tania Porqueddu; Chris Salisbury; Brian McKinstry; John Campbell; Andy Gibson; Sue Ziebland
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 5.386

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.