S Döpfmer1, M C Münchmeyer2, T Natschke2, W Herrmann2, F Holzinger2, R Burian3, A Berghöfer4, C Heintze2. 1. Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. susanne.doepfmer@charite.de. 2. Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. 3. Abteilung für Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Königin Elisabeth Herzberge, Berlin, Deutschland. 4. Institut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsökonomie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the approach of general practitioners (GP) and outpatient specialists for psychiatry, neurology or psychosomatic medicine to patients with somatically unexplained complaints. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with general practitioners in Berlin and with outpatient specialists. Interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Both GPs and specialists rarely used structured diagnostic instruments. Guidelines are seen and used with reservation throughout the different specialties. Similar to the GPs, most of the specialists surveyed in this study had reservations against the necessity of a precise coding according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). CONCLUSION: In outpatient care the concern for the individual patient is the connecting element between different medical specialties. This results in a differential diagnostic and therapeutic approach that is not automatically in line with guidelines. The development of common concepts in ambulatory care might help to meet the demands of this complex group of patients with somatically unexplained complaints.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the approach of general practitioners (GP) and outpatient specialists for psychiatry, neurology or psychosomatic medicine to patients with somatically unexplained complaints. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with general practitioners in Berlin and with outpatient specialists. Interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Both GPs and specialists rarely used structured diagnostic instruments. Guidelines are seen and used with reservation throughout the different specialties. Similar to the GPs, most of the specialists surveyed in this study had reservations against the necessity of a precise coding according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). CONCLUSION: In outpatient care the concern for the individual patient is the connecting element between different medical specialties. This results in a differential diagnostic and therapeutic approach that is not automatically in line with guidelines. The development of common concepts in ambulatory care might help to meet the demands of this complex group of patients with somatically unexplained complaints.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ambulatory care; General practitioners; Guidelines; Qualitative research; Somatoform disorders