Sickness certification system in the United Kingdom: qualitative study of views of general practitioners in Scotland

Objectives To explore how general practitioners operate the sickness certification system, their views on the system, and suggestions for change.Design Qualitative focus group study consisting of 11 focus groups with 67 participants.Setting General practitioners in practices in Glasgow, Tayside, and Highland regions, Scotland.Sample Purposive sample of general practitioners, with further theoretical sampling of key informant general practitioners to examine emerging themes.Results General practitioners believed that the sickness certification system failed to address complex, chronic, or doubtful cases. They seemed to develop various operational strategies for its implementation. There appeared to be important deliberate misuse of the system by general practitioners, possibly related to conflicts about roles and incongruities in the system. The doctor-patient relationship was perceived to conflict with the current role of general practitioners in sickness certification. When making decisions about certification, the general practitioners considered a wide variety of factors. They experienced contradictory demands from other system stakeholders and felt blamed for failing to make impossible reconciliations. They clearly identified the difficulties of operating the system when there was no continuity of patient care. Many wished either to relinquish their gatekeeper role or to continue only with major changes.Conclusions Policy makers need to recognise and accommodate the range and complexity of factors that influence the behaviour of general practitioners operating as gatekeepers to the sickness certification system, before making changes. Such changes are otherwise unlikely to result in improvement. Models other than the primary care gatekeeper model should be considered.     

Prescribing new drugs: qualitative study of influences on consultants and general practitioners

ObjectiveTo explore consultants'' and general practitioners'' perceptions of the factors that influence their decisions to introduce new drugs into their clinical practice.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews. Monitoring of hospital and general practice prescribing data for eight new drugs.SettingTeaching hospital and nearby general hospital plus general practices in Birmingham.Participants38 consultants and 56 general practitioners who regularly referred to the teaching hospital.ResultsConsultants usually prescribed new drugs only in their specialty, used few new drugs, and used scientific evidence to inform their decisions. General practitioners generally prescribed more new drugs and for a wider range of conditions, but their approach varied considerably both between general practitioners and between drugs for the same general practitioner. Drug company representatives were an important source of information for general practitioners. Prescribing data were consistent with statements made by respondents.ConclusionsThe factors influencing the introduction of new drugs, particularly in primary care, are more multiple and complex than suggested by early theories of drug innovation. Early experience of using a new drug seems to strongly influence future use.

What is already known on this topic

UK studies show that use of new drugs by general practitioners is influenced by consultants, the nature of the drug, and perceived risk

What this study adds

Consultants generally introduced fewer drugs than general practitioners, usually within their specialtyDecisions were said to be based mainly on the evidence from the scientific literature and meetingsGeneral practitioners prescribed more new drugs and the basis of decisions was more variedDoctors'' interpretations of using a new drug were not consistent     

Referrals to hospital by general practitioners: a study of compliance and communication.

To determine the extent of non-attendance at first hospital appointments 269 hospital referrals made in one practice over 14 weeks were analysed retrospectively. Non-attendance was more likely among patients referred to outpatient departments than to casualty or for admission. Fifteen per cent (41/269) of all patients and 20% (33/167) of outpatients failed to keep their initial appointments. Prolonged waiting times from referral to appointment were significantly related to non-attendance. Twenty weeks after the last referral had been made no communication had been received by the practice for 24% (61/252) of all referral letters received by the hospital. Minimum delays to appointments and improved communication between hospitals and general practitioners would help general practitioners to make appropriate referrals and improve compliance.     

Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study

ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which different forms of summarising diagnostic test information influence general practitioners'' ability to estimate disease probabilities.DesignControlled questionnaire study.SettingThree Swiss conferences in continuous medical education.Participants263 general practitioners.InterventionQuestionnaire with multiple choice questions about terms of test accuracy and a clinical vignette with the results of a diagnostic test described in three different ways (test result only, test result plus test sensitivity and specificity, test result plus the positive likelihood ratio presented in plain language).ResultsThe correct definitions for sensitivity and predictive value were chosen by 76% and 61% of the doctors respectively, but only 22% chose the correct answer for the post-test probability of a positive screening test. In the clinical vignette doctors given the test result only overestimated its diagnostic value (median attributed likelihood ratio (aLR)=9.0, against 2.54 reported in the literature). Providing the scan''s sensitivity and specificity reduced the overestimation (median aLR=6.0) but to a lesser extent than simple wording of the likelihood ratio (median aLR=3.0).ConclusionMost general practitioners recognised the correct definitions for sensitivity and positive predictive value but did not apply them correctly. Conveying test accuracy information in simple, non-technical language improved their ability to estimate disease probabilities accurately.

What is already known on this topic

Many doctors confuse the sensitivity of clinical tests and their positive predictive valueDoctors tend to overestimate information derived from such tests and underestimate information from a patient''s clinical historyMost primary research on diagnostic accuracy is reported using sensitivity and specificity or likelihood ratios

What this study adds

In a cohort of experienced Swiss general practitioners most were unable to interpret correctly numerical information on the diagnostic accuracy of a screening testWhen presented with a positive result alone they grossly overestimated its valueAdding information on the test''s sensitivity and specificity moderated these overestimates, and expressing the same numerical information as a positive likelihood ratio in simple, non-technical language brought the estimates still closer to their true values     

Positive and negative factors in defensive medicine: a questionnaire study of general practitioners.

OBJECTIVES--(a) To investigate defensive medical practices among general practitioners; (b) to compare any such practices with general practitioners'' understanding of certain aspects of the terms of service and medical negligence and practitioners'' concerns about the risk of being sued or having a complaint lodged. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire survey. Each questionnaire was followed by a reminder. SUBJECTS--500 systematically selected general practitioners on the membership list of the Medical Defence Union. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Answers to questions on defensive medical practices, understanding of certain aspects of the terms of service and medical negligence, and concerns about the risk of being sued or having a complaint lodged. RESULTS--300 general practitioners returned the questionnaire (response rate 60%). 294 (98%) claimed to have made some practice changes as a result of the possibility of a patient complaining. Of the defensive medical practices adopted, the most common (over half of doctors stating likely or very likely) seemed to be increased diagnostic testing, increased referrals, increased follow up, and more detailed patient explanations and note taking. Respondents practised defensive medicine as a possible consequence of concerns about the risks of being sued or having a complaint lodged. This association was particularly strong for negative defensive practices. Defensive medical practice did not correlate with any misunderstanding about the law of negligence or the general practitioners'' terms of service. CONCLUSIONS--General practitioners are practising defensive medicine. Some defensive practices such as increased patient explanations or more detailed note taking are clearly beneficial. However, implementing the findings of the Wilson report may increase negative defensive medical practices.     

Why general practitioners and consultants change their clinical practice: a critical incident study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the complete range of factors which doctors recognise as changing their clinical practice and provide a measure of how often education is involved in change. DESIGN: Interviews using the critical incident technique. SETTING: Primary and secondary care. SUBJECTS: Random sample of 50 general practitioners and 50 consultants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Categories of reasons for change in clinical practice. RESULTS: Doctors described 361 changes in clinical practice, with an average of 3.0 reasons per change. The three most frequently mentioned reasons were organisational factors, education, and contact with professionals, together accounting for 47.9% of the total number of reasons for change. Education accounted for one sixth (16.9%) of the reasons for change and was involved in one third (37.1%) of the changes. Education was seldom mentioned as a reason for change in referral practice but was more often mentioned in management and prescribing changes. Consultants were influenced by medical journals and scientific conferences, while general practitioners were more influenced by medical newspapers and postgraduate meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Education is involved in about a third of changes in clinical practice. The wide range of other factors affecting changes in practice need to be taken into account in providing and evaluating education. The role of education in the numerous changes in clinical practice that currently have no educational component should also be considered.     

Screening for suicidal thoughts in primary care: the views of patients and general practitioners

Background It has been argued that primary care practitioners have an important part to play in the prevention of suicide. However, levels of assessment of risk of suicide among patients treated in this setting are generally low.Methods Cross-sectional survey of general practitioners (GPs) and people being treated in primary care who had signs of depression. The study combined open and closed questions on attitudes to screening or being screened for suicidal ideation.Results One hundred and one of 132 patients took part in the survey and 103 of 300 GPs completed a questionnaire. A majority of both GPs and patients stated that people should be screened for suicidal ideation. However, an important minority of patients and GPs stated that asking or being asked such questions made them feel uncomfortable. Less than half of GPs had received formal training on the assessment of suicide risk. GPs told the researchers that barriers to screening included time pressures, culture and language, and concerns about the impact that screening could have on people's mental health. One-quarter of GPs and one-fifth of patients supported the notion that screening for suicidal ideation could induce a person to have thoughts of self-harm.Conclusions GPs and family doctors should screen for suicidal risk among depressed patients and should receive training on how to do this as part of their general training in the assessment and management of mental disorders. Research should be conducted to examine what, if any, effect screening for suicidal ideation has on mental health.     

Findings of a national survey of the role of general practitioners in the treatment of opiate misuse: views on treatment.

An important component of government policy on services for drug misusers is to encourage general practitioners to take a more active role. There are, however, some indications that general practitioners regard drug misusers as undesirable patients, although no evidence is available. As part of a wider investigation of the role of general practitioners in the treatment of opiate misuse, a questionnaire, which was sent in mid-1985 to a 5% random sample of general practitioners in England and Wales, included a section designed to elicit their views on policy and treatment connected with opiate misuse. The results showed that although most general practitioners consider opiate misuse to be a priority concern for the Health Service, they also generally regard opiate misusers as especially difficult to manage, beyond their competence to treat, and less acceptable as patients than others in need of care. General practitioners who have qualified recently were somewhat less unfavourable in their views. These findings suggest that the effective implementation of government policy will require trying to modify general practitioners'' attitudes and providing support for them.