H P Jung1, M Wensing, R Grol. 1. Centre for Quality of Care Research, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are expected to be responsive to patients' expectations, but patients and doctors may have different views on what constitutes good general practice care. AIM: To elicit areas of controversy as well as areas of mutual agreement between the opinions of patients and GPs with regard to good general practice care. METHOD: A questionnaire, distributed to 850 patients and 400 GPs, measured which of 40 aspects of general practice care were given priority. A second questionnaire, distributed to 400 different GPs, measured the GPs' perception of the priorities of patients. RESULTS: The priority rank order of all 40 aspects was highly correlated for patients and GPs (0.72), as was the rank order of aspects for patients and the perception of them by GPs (0.71). Nevertheless, when comparing the priorities of patients and GPs, 23 out of 40 aspects differed significantly (P = 0.00125) in their rank number. Similarly, when comparing the priorities of patients with the perception of them by GPs, 23 aspects differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: There is great similarity between the priorities of patients and those of GPs. GPs are quite capable of assessing most of the priorities of patients. However, potentially controversial areas of general practice care do exist.
BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) are expected to be responsive to patients' expectations, but patients and doctors may have different views on what constitutes good general practice care. AIM: To elicit areas of controversy as well as areas of mutual agreement between the opinions of patients and GPs with regard to good general practice care. METHOD: A questionnaire, distributed to 850 patients and 400 GPs, measured which of 40 aspects of general practice care were given priority. A second questionnaire, distributed to 400 different GPs, measured the GPs' perception of the priorities of patients. RESULTS: The priority rank order of all 40 aspects was highly correlated for patients and GPs (0.72), as was the rank order of aspects for patients and the perception of them by GPs (0.71). Nevertheless, when comparing the priorities of patients and GPs, 23 out of 40 aspects differed significantly (P = 0.00125) in their rank number. Similarly, when comparing the priorities of patients with the perception of them by GPs, 23 aspects differed significantly. CONCLUSIONS: There is great similarity between the priorities of patients and those of GPs. GPs are quite capable of assessing most of the priorities of patients. However, potentially controversial areas of general practice care do exist.
Authors: M Chatziarsenis; C Lionis; E Makri; K Sapouna; M Fioretos; T Faresjö; M Mavromanolakis; J Vlachonikolis; E Trell Journal: J Med Syst Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Heidi Bøgelund Frederiksen; Jakob Kragstrup; Birgitte Dehlholm-Lambertsen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Maria A Mazzi; Michela Rimondini; Myriam Deveugele; Christa Zimmermann; Francesca Moretti; Liesbeth van Vliet; Giuseppe Deledda; Ian Fletcher; Jozien Bensing Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Marloes A van Bokhoven; Hèlen Koch; Trudy van der Weijden; Richard P T M Grol; Arnold D Kester; Paula E L M Rinkens; Patrick J E Bindels; Geert-Jan Dinant Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166