Patients comment on video-recorded consultations — the “good” GP and the “bad”

Abstract

Patients comment on video-recorded consultations — the “good” GP and the “bad”. Arborelius, E., Timpka, T. and Nyce, J. M. (Department of Social Medicine, Linköping University and Department of Anthoropology, Brown University, USA).

The aim of this study was to describe and understand patients' positive and negative experiences of General Practitioners (GPs). Forty-six consultations were videotaped in four primary health care centres in Sweden. Afterwards the patients commented on the recorded consultations. The comments were categorized and analyzed using an exploratory qualitative approach. An image of the “good” GP emerged that had two major characteristics: that of being a caring human; an individual who listens, understands, and is concerned. At the same time, the good GP acts like an ordinary person and treats the patient as an equal. The personal relationship with the GP also influenced the choice and course of medical interventions. For the patient, the manner in which an intervention is seen is linked to whether the GPs treats the patient with respect or not. A typical experience of a ”bad” GP was that the GP appeared unreachable as a person. An example is when the patient feels that the GP was not taking his or her symptoms seriously. Another characteristic of the bad GP is failure to communicate to the patient his or her standpoint on issues raised during consultations.

Keywords

Doctor-patient relationship practice studies video recordings qualitative methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Engeström Y. Developmental studies of work as a testbench of activity theory. In: Lave J , Chaiklin S , eds. Situated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

2. Arborelius E , Timpka T. General practitioners' comments on video recorded consultations as an aid to understand the doctor-patient relationship. Fam Pract 1990; 7: 84–90.

3. Arborelius E , Bremberg S , Timpka T.

What is going on when the general practitioner doesn't grasp the consultation?

Fam Pract 1992, in press.

4. Hulka BS , Zyzanski SJ , Cassel JC , Thompsson SJ. Scale for measurement of attitudes toward physicians and primary care. Med Care 1970; 8: 429–36.

5. Frankel R , Beckman H. Impact: An interaction-based method for preserving and analyzing clinical transactions. In: Pettigrew L , ed. Straight talk: Explorations in provider and patient interactions. Nashville, Tennessee: Humana Inc., 1982.

6. Arborelius E , Timpka T.

In what way may videotapes be used to get significant information about the patient-physician relationship?

Medical Teacher 1990; 12: 197–208.

7. Glaser BG , Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

8. Falvo D , Smith J. Assessing residents behavioural science skills: patients views of physician-patient interaction. J Fam Pract 1983; 17: 479–83.

9. Korsch B , Negrete V. Doctor-patient communication. Sci Am 1972; 227: 66–74.

10.

10. Hein N , Wodak R. Medical interviews in internal medicine. Some results of an empirical investigation. Text 1987; 7: 37–65.

11.

11. Pierloot R. Different models in the approach to the doctor-patient relationship. Psychother Psychosom 1983; 39: 213–24.

12.

12. Willson P , McNamara R. How perceptions of a simulated physician-patient interaction influence intended satisfaction and compliance. Soc Sci Med 1982; 16: 1699–1704.