Search

Places to study at medical schools are scarce, which makes well-designed selection procedures employing criteria with predictive validity for good students and doctors necessary. In Germany, the pre-university grade point average (pu-GPA) is the main selection criterion for medical school application. However, this is criticised. According to a decision by the Federal Constitutional Court, selection must be supplemented with a criterion other than the pu-GPA. Empathy is a core competency in medical care. Therefore, it seems to be an appropriate criterion. This study evaluates the feasibility of an empathy questionnaire and empathy appraisal by a panel for applicant selection. We employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. Results of self- and external assessments of empathy were compared in a quantitative analysis. Thereafter, the concept of empathy and the approach to empathy appraisal by the selection panel members were explored qualitatively in six focus groups with 19 selection panel members using a semi-structured guideline. Transcripts were content analysed using both deductive and inductive coding. We found no significant correlation of self- and external empathy assessment (ρ(212) = − .031, p > .05). The results of the focus groups showed that, while panel members judged the external empathy assessment to be useful, they had neither a homogenous concept of empathy nor an implicit basis for this assessment. This diversity in panel members’ concepts of empathy and differences in the concepts underlying the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Index seem to be the main reasons for the lack of correlation between self- and external empathy assessments. While empathy is a possible amendment to established selection criteria for medical education in Germany, its external assessment should not be employed without training panel members based on an established theoretical concept of empathy and an objective self-assessment measure.

Background Many patients consult their primary care physician with persistent somatic symptoms such as pain or sickness. Quite often these consultations and further diagnostic measures yield no medical explanation for the symptoms – patients and physicians are left in uncertainty. In fact, diagnostic and treatment barriers in primary care hinder timely health-care provision for patients suffering from persistent somatic symptoms (PSS). The significance of individual barriers is still unknown. We compare and quantify these barriers from the perspective of primary care physicians and identify subpopulations of primary care physicians who experience particular barriers as most severe. Methods We mailed a questionnaire to primary care physicians (PCP) in Germany and asked them which barriers they consider most important. We invited a random sample of 12,004 primary care physicians in eight federal states in Germany. Physicians provided anonymous mailed or online responses. We also mailed a postcard to announce the survey and a mail reminder. Main measures were Likert rating scales of items relating to barriers in the diagnosis and treatment of PSS in primary care. Information on demography and medical practice were also collected. Results We analyzed 1719 data sets from 1829 respondents. PCPs showed strongest agreement with statements regarding (1.) their lack of knowledge about treatment guidelines, (2.) their perceptions that patients with PSS would expect symptom relief, (3.) their concern to overlook physical disease in these patients, and (4.) their usage of psychotropic drugs with these patients. More experienced PCPs were better able to cope with the possibility of overlooking physical disease than those less experienced. Conclusions The PCPs in our survey answered that the obligation to rule out severe physical disease and the demand to relieve patients from symptoms belong to the most severe barriers for adequate treatment and diagnosis. Moreover, many physicians admitted to not knowing the appropriate treatment guidelines for these patients. Based on our results, raising awareness of guidelines and improving knowledge about the management of persistent somatic symptoms appear to be promising approaches for overcoming the barriers to diagnosis and treatment of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do The date the study was registered: October 2nd 2017 The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9th 2018 DRKS-ID: DRKS00012942

Background Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) and somatoform disorders are common in general practices, but there is evidence that general practitioners (GPs) rarely use these codes. Assuming that correct classification and coding of symptoms and diseases are important for adequate management and treatment, insights into these processes could reveal problematic areas and possible solutions. Our study aims at exploring general practitioners’ views on coding and reasons for not coding MUS/somatoform disorders. Methods We invited GPs to participate in six focus groups (N = 42). Patient vignettes and a semi-structured guideline were used by two moderators to facilitate the discussions. Recordings were transcribed verbatim. Two researchers analyzed the data using structuring content analysis with deductive and inductive category building. Results Three main categories turned out to be most relevant. For category a) “benefits of coding” GPs described that coding is seen as being done for reimbursement purposes and is not necessarily linked to the content of their reference files for a specific patient. Others reported to code specific diagnoses only if longer consultations to explore psychosomatic symptoms or psychotherapy are intended to be billed. Reasons for b) “restrained coding” were attempting to protect the patient from stigma through certain diagnoses and the preference for tentative diagnoses and functional coding. Some GPs admitted to c) “code inaccurately” attributing this to insufficient knowledge of ICD-10-criteria, time constraints or using “rules of thumb” for coding. Conclusions There seem to be challenges in the process of coding of MUS and somatoform disorders, but GPs appear not to contest the patients’ suffering and accept uncertainty (about diagnoses) as an elementary part of their work. From GPs’ points of view ICD-10-coding does not appear to be a necessary requirement for treating patients and coding might be avoided to protect the patients from stigma and other negative consequences. Our findings supply a possible explanation for the commonly seen difference between routine and epidemiological data. The recent developments in the DSM-5 and the upcoming ICD-11 will supposedly change acceptance and handling of these diagnoses for GPs and patients. Either way, consequences for GPs’ diagnosing and coding behavior are not yet foreseeable. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0812-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is defined as medication with uncertain therapeutic effects and/or potential adverse drug reactions outweighing the clinical benefits. The prescription rate of PIM for oldest-old patients is high despite the existence of lists of PIM (e.g. the PRISCUS list) and efforts to raise awareness. This study aims at identifying general practitioners’ views on PIM and aspects affecting the (long-term) use of PIM. Methods As part of the CIM-TRIAD study, we conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 47 general practitioners, discussing 25 patients with and 22 without PIM (according to the PRISCUS list). The interview guideline included generic and patient-specific questions. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. We content analyzed the interviews using deductive and inductive category development. Results The majority of the general practitioners were not aware of the PRISCUS list. Agents deemed potentially inappropriate from the general practitioners’ point of view and the PRISCUS list are not completely superimposable. General practitioners named their criteria to identify appropriate medication for elderly patients (e.g. renal function, cognitive state) and emphasized the importance of monitoring. We identified prescription- (e.g. benzodiazepines on alternative private prescription), medication- (e.g. subjective perception that PIM has no alternative), general practitioner- (e.g. general practitioner relies on specialists), patient- (e.g. “demanding high-user”, positive subjective benefit-risk-ratio) and system-related aspects (e.g. specialists lacking holistic view, interface problems) related to the (long term) use of PIM. Conclusions While the PRISCUS list does not seem to play a decisive role in general practice, general practitioners are well aware of risks associated with PIM. Our study identifies some starting points for a safer handling of PIM, e.g. stronger dissemination of the PRISCUS list, better compensation of medication reviews, “positive lists”, adequate patient information, multifaceted interventions and improved communication between general practitioners and specialists. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0595-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Chronic conditions are the most common themes in doctor-patient communication, especially for older patients with multimorbidity and their GPs. Former quantitative studies identified a variety of socio-demographic and health-related factors which were associated with the (dis-)agreement between medical records and patient self-reported diseases. The aim of this qualitative study was to identify reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between patients and their GPs. Methods We conducted three focus groups with GPs (n = 15) and three focus groups with multimorbid patients aged 65 to 85 (n = 21). The participants were recruited from the MultiCare Cohort Study. Focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts of the focus groups were analysed using the qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Categories were determined deductively and inductively. Results The analysis revealed seven themes concerning reasons for disagreement regarding illnesses between patients and their GPs: problems with communication and cooperation between health care professionals, disease management by the GP and the patient, the documentation behaviour of the GP, communication challenges between GP and patient, differences in the understanding of a disease between GP and patient, the prioritization and rating of diseases by GP and patient and obliviousness, repression and avoidance by the patient. Conclusions For older patients with multimorbidity, our study demonstrated that there is a need to enhance the cooperation between GPs, specialists and outpatient care, a demand to improve doctor-patient communication and a need for interventions to increase patients’ knowledge of diseases. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0286-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.