Should general practitioners call patients by their first names?

OBJECTIVE--To assess the acceptability to patients of the use of patients'' first names by doctors and doctors'' first names by patients in general practice. DESIGN--An administered questionnaire survey. SETTING--5 General practices in Lothian. PATIENTS--475 Patients consulting 30 general practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE--Response by patients to questionnaire on attitude to use of first names. RESULTS--Most of the patients either liked (223) or did not mind (175) being called by their first names. Only 77 disliked it, most of whom were aged over 65. Most patients (324) did not, however, want to call the doctor by his or her first name. CONCLUSIONS--General practitioners should consider using patients'' first names more often, particularly with younger patients.     

Are general practitioners ready to prevent the spread of HIV?

General practitioners are excellently placed to assess a person''s risk of being infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and to give advice on reducing that risk. Their attitudes to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and infection with HIV are, however, unknown. A questionnaire survey of 196 general practitioners in East Berkshire Health District was used to assess general practitioners'' readiness to undertake opportunistic health education to prevent the spread of infection with HIV. Altogether 132 replied. Sixty four of them expressed little interest in health education about HIV, and one in six would not dissent from the notion that AIDS could be controlled only by criminalising homosexuality. Only 75 of them had initiated discussions about HIV with patients. Moreover, many underestimated the risks from heterosexual sex while exaggerating the risks from non-sexual contact.Advice from general practitioners if given extensively might reduce the spread of infection with HIV. How best this may be achieved needs to be considered urgently.     

Are general practitioners prepared to share information about their patients and their work?

A questionnaire survey of the 44 general practices in Central Nottinghamshire Health District elicited 43 responses. Ten scenarios on sharing information were graded on a five point scale by each practice according to its willingness to share the information. Responses varied from 41 practices that would at least “probably” give the number of their young chronic sick patients to the local district health authority to 17 practices that were positive towards sharing with a local charity the names of elderly patients living alone. This second example raises profound issues of confidentiality. The extent to which practices were prepared theoretically to share practice generated information with outside bodies was generally high and showed a willingness to do so if the reasons were sound and the requesting body was acceptable.     

Do general practitioners miss dementia in elderly patients?

General practitioners and community nurses were asked to rate the likelihood of dementia for each of their elderly patients. Cases of dementia were identified by research psychiatrists using the Cambridge mental disorders of the elderly examination (CAMDEX), a new structured diagnostic interview. General practitioners correctly identified dementia as at least a possibility in 121 of the 208 cases found. Nevertheless, they mistakenly rated as demented several patients suffering from functional psychiatric disorders, in particular depression. Community nurses correctly identified dementia as at least a possibility in 64 of the 74 demented patients known to them, but they incorrectly suspected dementia in a greater proportion of instances. Both general practitioners and families appeared to have low expectations of what general practice has to offer demented elderly people. General practitioners should take the initiative in diagnosing dementia in very elderly patients who show signs of the condition. In some cases it may be secondary to treatable disorders, and in others all that may be required are understanding, support, and advice to families.     

Is communication improving between general practitioners and psychiatrists?

General practitioners and psychiatrists communicate mainly by letter. To ascertain the most important items of information that should be included in these letters ("key items") questionnaires were sent to 80 general practitioners and 80 psychiatrists. A total of 120 referral letters sent to psychiatric clinics in 1973 and 1983 were studied, together with the psychiatrists'' replies, and these were rated for the inclusion of "key items." General practitioners'' letters contain less information about the family but more about psychiatric history than they did a decade ago. Overall, psychiatrists'' letters have not changed. Registrars, however, now include noticeably more "key items" than they did 10 years ago, but their letters remain twice the length of those written by consultants. It is suggested that letter writing skills are vital to good patient management and should be taught to postgraduate trainees in general practice and psychiatry.