A standardised instrument for patient evaluations of general practice care in Europe

Objective: International comparisons of health care systems may provide important insights, but they require internationally standardised and validated instruments. This paper describes the validity and reliability of the EUROPEP instrument for patient evaluation of general practice care. Methods: Surveys were performed in 16 countries among patients who visited the general practice (n=23892), using the 23-item EUROPEP questionnaire. Data were analysed with respect to content validity, reliability, criterion validity, construct validity and sensitivity of the instrument. Results: The item response among responders was good or acceptable for most items. Two internally consistent dimensions were identified, 'clinical behaviour' (17 items) and 'organisation of care' (6 items). The answers to the 23 questions predicted the overall attitudes regarding the general practitioner. Higher age, more visits to the GP and better health status predicted more positive evaluations of care, as was expected beforehand. Differences between countries were significant but moderate for most of the questions. In specific countries problems with respect to validity and reliability were found. Conclusions: An internationally standardised and validated instrument for patients' evaluations of general practice care is now available for international comparisons. Future research should improve its validity to solve the problems that were found in some countries. Eur J Gen Pract 2000;6:82–7.     

Patient characteristics associated with differences in patients' evaluation of their general practitioner

Background  

Knowledge of the extent to which patient characteristics are systematically associated with variation in patient evaluations will enable us to adjust for differences between practice populations and thereby compare GPs. Whether this is appropriate depends on the purpose for which the patient evaluation was conducted. Associations between evaluations and patient characteristics may reflect gaps in the quality of care or may be due to inherent characteristics of the patients. This study aimed to determine such associations in a setting with a comprehensive list system and gate-keeping.     

Comparison of patients' and general practitioners' evaluations of general practice care

Objectives: To compare patients' and general practitioners' (GPs') evaluations of the quality of general practice care.

Design: Written surveys among patients and GPs.

Setting: General practice in the Netherlands.

Subjects: 1772 patients (from 45 GPs) and a random sample of 315 GPs.

Main outcome measures: Patients' and GPs' evaluations of 23 aspects of general practice care and GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations using a 5 point scale.

Results: The response rate was 88% in the patient sample and 63% in the GP sample. The patients' ratings of care were significantly more positive (mean 4.0) than those of the GPs (mean 3.7) as well as GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations (mean 3.5) (p<0.001). The overall rank order correlations between the patients' evaluations, GPs' evaluations, and GPs' perceptions of the patients' evaluations were 0.75 or higher (p<0.001). Patients and practitioners gave the most positive evaluations of specific aspects of the doctor-patient relationship ("keeping patients' records and data confidential", "listening to patients", and "making patients feel they had enough time during consultations") and aspects of the organisation of care ("provide quick service for urgent health problems" and "helpfulness of the staff (other than the doctor)"). The aspects of care evaluated least positively by patients as well as by GPs were other organisational aspects ("preparing patients for what to expect from specialist or hospital care" and "getting through to practice on the telephone").

Conclusions: GPs and patients have to some extent a shared perspective on general practice care. However, GPs were more critical about the quality of care than patients and they underestimated how positive patients were about the care they provide. Furthermore, specific aspects of care were evaluated differently, so surveys and other consultations with patients are necessary to integrate their perspective into quality improvement activities.

     

Observational study of home visits in Slovene general practice: patient characteristics, practice characteristics and health care utilization

BACKGROUND: Home visits are an important way of delivering primary health care, but there is a long-term decrease in home visit rates in many countries. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate patient characteristics, morbidity, functional status, quality of life, satisfaction with care, practice characteristics and health care utilization in general practice patients visited at home at least once in a study year. METHODS:The design of the study was a cross-sectional survey of the patients of a stratified sample of 36 GP offices in Slovenia using a self-administered questionnaire. Sixty consecutive patients in sampled practices contacting the doctor in the office in the study period in March 1998 were included in the analysis. The age, sex, educational status, residence, presence of chronic condition, measures of anxiety or depressive symptoms, rates of patients who expressed a need for emergency care in 1 year, rates of self-care, measures of functional status, quality of life, satisfaction with care, rates of using GP practice visits and out-of-hours services and rates of using specialist or hospital services were recorded in a home-visited group versus a non-visited group. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients (15.4%) were reported to have at least one visit in the study year. Patients visited in their homes were older, predominantly female, better educated, had lower perceptions of their functional status and well-being and they used primary health services more frequently than others. Their GPs were more likely to be males, and were more likely to practise in rural areas, in solo practices as private practitioners. CONCLUSION: Home visits remain an important part of GP work in countries in transition, such as Slovenia, especially for more seriously ill patients.     

Arrhythmias in general practice: diagnostic value of patient characteristics, medical history and symptoms

BACKGROUND: Complaints possibly caused by arrhythmias are frequently seen in general practice. It is unclear to what extent such complaints can differentiate between arrhythmias and other pathology in general practice. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the value of symptoms (a) in diagnosing arrhythmias in general practice and (b) in identifying patients with clinically relevant arrhythmias. METHOD: During a 2-year period, a structured history from 762 patients with new complaints possibly related to an arrhythmia was taken by the GP, and a transtelephonic electrocardiogram (ECG) was made. RESULTS: In 28.3% of the patients, arrhythmias were detected and 8.8% were clinically relevant. Several patient characteristics, symptoms and medical history findings have high predictive values in diagnosing arrhythmias. In the logistic regression analysis, age and, to a lesser extent, male gender, palpitations and dyspnoea during consultation and the use of cardiovascular drugs are associated with the presence of arrhythmias. In detecting clinically relevant arrhythmias the same parameters apart from gender are important, as well as a history of arrhythmias. The use of central nervous system medication and frequent psychosomatic complaints are negatively associated with the presence of clinically relevant arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: In general practice, patient characteristics, symptoms and medical history findings can be used in the detection of arrhythmias and the assessment of their severity. They can help in the decision of whether to make an ECG recording.      

Comparison of patients' preferences and evaluations regarding aspects of general practice care

BACKGROUND: Although patients' views on health care are perceived to be crucial, insight into the different constructs capturing these views remains limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between patients' preferences and their evaluations of general practice care. METHODS: Patients visiting five rural practices in The Netherlands were asked to complete a questionnaire measuring either their evaluations or their preferences on 44 aspects of general practice care. After at least 3 weeks, those patients who had answered the evaluation questionnaire received the questionnaire measuring their preferences, and vice versa. RESULTS: A total of 449 patients answered both questionnaires (response 70%). The longer the period after the consultation, the lower was the mean percentage of all 44 aspects rated as 'good' in the evaluation questionnaire (P = 0.006) and the higher was the mean percentage of all 44 aspects rated as 'very important' in the preference questionnaire (P = 0.046). The Spearman rank order correlation between the ranking of patients' evaluations and patients' preferences was 0.34, a low although significant correlation (P = 0.024), i.e. the two rank orders do not resemble each other very much. CONCLUSIONS: Patients clearly distinguished their preferences from their evaluations of general practice care. Aspects of general practice care, whether important or not, can be evaluated positively or negatively. Patients' preferences and patients' evaluations are, however, both influenced by the length of the time elapsed since the consultation.     

Continuity in UK general practice: a multilevel model of patient,doctor and practice factors associated with patients seeing their usual doctor

BACKGROUND: Personal continuity is a 'core value' for UK general practice, but often appears ignored by organizational change. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to examine practice, GP and patient factors associated with personal continuity of care. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out of 25 994 people aged >15 consulting over a 2-week period in 53 general practices in four regions of the UK. The outcome measure was whether or not the patient was seeing their usual or regular doctor. RESULTS: Compared with the smallest quintile of practices, the odds ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] for patients seeing their usual doctor for the two largest quintiles of list size (6337-11 036 and >11 037) were 0.24 (0.12-0.46) and 0.19 (0.10-0.37). Patients in the five practices with personal list systems were more likely to be seeing their usual doctor (odds ratio 3.27, 95% CI 1.87-5.70). Older patients were considerably more likely to be seeing their usual doctor. Young men were less likely, but by middle age there were no differences between men and women. Compared with patients who only wished to discuss a new or urgent physical problem, those wishing to discuss psychological (odds ratio 2.28, 95% CI 2.01-2.58) or longstanding physical problems (odds ratio 1.92, 95% CI 1.78-2.08) were more likely to be seeing their usual doctor. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, list sizes over approximately 6000-6500 were associated with marked reductions in personal continuity. If GPs are serious about the importance of personal continuity, then the size of the primary care team needs to be examined. There may be potential in separating the administrative functions of the practice from the clinical functions of the primary care team.     

Patient evaluations of accessibility and co‐ordination in general practice in Europe

Objective  To determine whether patient evaluations of the accessibility to general practice and co‐ordination with other care providers were associated with characteristics of general practice organizations. Background  In 1998 patients across Europe perceived that small general practices have better accessibility than large practices. Since then a number of changes in primary care have had impact on accessibility and co‐ordination of care. Design, setting and participants  The study was based on data from the European Practice Assessment study, an observational study in 284 general practices in 10 countries in 2004. Main outcome measures  Patient evaluations of general practice were measured with the 23‐item Europep instrument, from which seven items on accessibility and co‐ordination were selected in a principal factor analysis. Six practice characteristics were examined: percentage of female general practitioners, mean age of physicians, mean number of physician hours worked per week, number of general practitioners, number of care providers, urbanization level. Mixed regression models were applied, in which patients were clustered within practices, and practices within countries. Results  Practices with a higher numbers of care providers received less positive patient evaluations (b = −0.112, P = 0.004). The other practice characteristics were not related to patient evaluations. Only a small proportion of the total variation in patient evaluations of accessibility and co‐ordination (1.8%) was explained by characteristics of the general practice organizations. Conclusions  General practices have become larger in most developed countries in recent years, but patients seemed to prefer general practice organizations with fewer health professionals.     

Communication in general practice: differences between European countries

BACKGROUND: Based on differences in national health care system characteristics such as the gatekeeping role of GPs (at the macrolevel) and on diverging GP and patient characteristics (at the microlevel), communication may differ between countries. Knowledge of the influence of these characteristics on doctor-patient communication will be important for setting European health care policies. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were (i) to compare doctor-patient communication in general practice between European countries; and (ii) to investigate the influence of the gatekeeping system and GP and patient characteristics on doctor-patient communication in general practice. METHODS: Fifteen patients per GP (in total 2825 patients) of 190 GPs in six European countries were included. Participating countries were The Netherlands, Spain, the UK (gatekeeping countries), Belgium, Germany and Switzerland (non-gatekeeping countries). Data were collected by means of patient and GP questionnaires and observation of videotaped consultations, and analysed by one-way and multilevel, multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Differences in communication between countries were found in: affective and instrumental behaviour; biomedical and psychosocial talk; GPs' patient-directed gaze; and consultation length. The study showed that GPs' gatekeeping role (with registered patients) was less important for doctor-patient communication than was expected. Patient characteristics such as gender, age, having psychosocial problems, and familiarity between the doctor and the patient were the most important in explaining differences in communication. CONCLUSION: The gatekeeping role of GPs is hardly important in explaining doctor-patient communication. The relationship is more complex than expected. Patient and GP characteristics are more important. Cultural factors should be included in future studies.     

Feedback of patients' evaluations of general practice care: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of feedback of patients' evaluations of care to general practitioners. DESIGN: Randomised trial. SETTING: General practice in the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: 55 GPs and samples of 3691 and 3595 adult patients before and after the intervention, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: GPs in the intervention group were given an individualised structured feedback report concerning evaluations of care provided by their own patients. Reference figures referring to other GPs were added as well as suggestions for interpretation of this feedback, an evidence-based overview of factors determining patients' evaluations of care, and methods to discuss and plan improvements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' evaluations of nine dimensions of general practice measured with the CEP, a previously validated questionnaire consisting of 64 questions, using a six point answering scale (1= poor, 6 = very good). RESULTS: Mean scores per CEP dimension varied from 3.88 to 4.77. Multilevel regression analysis showed that, after correction for baseline scores, patients' evaluations of continuity and medical care were less positive after the intervention in the intervention group (4.60 v 4.77, p < 0.05 and 4.68 v 4.71, p < 0.05, respectively). No differences were found in the remaining seven CEP dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Providing feedback on patients' evaluations of care to GPs did not result in changes in their evaluation of the care received. This conclusion challenges the relevance of feedback on patients' evaluations of care for quality improvement.     

Meticulous handling of electronic patient records in general practice

A 41-year-old woman visited her general practitioner because she wished to receive her medical records and those of her two children. She had decided to move pending divorce and wanted to transfer her medical information to another physician. The information was handed to her on a floppy disk. The next day her husband came and demanded that his own information be deleted from the records. Many Dutch physicians have electronic patient records, which will replace paper records presently. Patients may decide to have their medical information selectively transferred to another physician. This may interfere with adequate information of the treating physician. Electronic episode-related patient records may facilitate transfer of information and will have an important role in regulating physician-patient contact according to the Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (Act on the protection of personal data), the Wet op de Geneeskundige Behandelingsovereenkomst (Act on agreement concerning medical treatment), and the Wet op de Beroepen in de Individuele Gezondheidszorg (Individual health care professionals act). Patients' rights to control the transfer of their information must be ensured.