A Dearden1, M Smithers, A Thapar. 1. Department of General Practice, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most aspects of the consultation have been extensively reported there is very little information on the effects of interruptions on the consultation. OBJECTIVE: We wished to discover the patients' view of interruptions. METHODS: In this pilot study the sources and frequency of interruptions to the consultations of a single general practitioner were measured. The effects of interruptions on 102 patients whose consultations were interrupted were then ascertained using a simple questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall interruption rate was found to be 10.2%. The telephone was the commonest source of interruption, accounting for 50% of interruptions. Although most patients did not perceive the interruption as having an important effect on the consultation, 20% of patients did feel that the interruption had a bad effect on the consultation and 40% of patients felt it would have been better not to have been interrupted. A majority of patients (52%) did not feel that the reason for the interruption was important. Although most patients did not feel affected by the interruption, a significant minority (18%) of patients had a strongly negative emotional response to the interruption. CONCLUSIONS: In view of these findings the need for further work has been highlighted.
BACKGROUND: Although most aspects of the consultation have been extensively reported there is very little information on the effects of interruptions on the consultation. OBJECTIVE: We wished to discover the patients' view of interruptions. METHODS: In this pilot study the sources and frequency of interruptions to the consultations of a single general practitioner were measured. The effects of interruptions on 102 patients whose consultations were interrupted were then ascertained using a simple questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall interruption rate was found to be 10.2%. The telephone was the commonest source of interruption, accounting for 50% of interruptions. Although most patients did not perceive the interruption as having an important effect on the consultation, 20% of patients did feel that the interruption had a bad effect on the consultation and 40% of patients felt it would have been better not to have been interrupted. A majority of patients (52%) did not feel that the reason for the interruption was important. Although most patients did not feel affected by the interruption, a significant minority (18%) of patients had a strongly negative emotional response to the interruption. CONCLUSIONS: In view of these findings the need for further work has been highlighted.
Authors: Juliana J Brixey; David J Robinson; Craig W Johnson; Todd R Johnson; James P Turley; Vimla L Patel; Jiajie Zhang Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Stefanie Mache; Karin Vitzthum; Bianca Kusma; Albert Nienhaus; Burghard F Klapp; David A Groneberg Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 3.183