Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;326:1310 (14 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7402.1310
Carolyn Tarrant, research associate1, Kate Windridge, research fellow1, Mary Boulton, professor of sociology2, Richard Baker, professor of quality in health care1, George Freeman, professor of general practice3
1 Clinical Governance Research and Development Unit, Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester LE5 4PW, 2 School of Social Sciences and Law, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, 3 Centre for Primary Care and Social Medicine, Imperial College London, London W6 8RP
Correspondence to: C Tarrant ccp3{at}le.ac.uk
Design Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews using the "framework" approach.
Setting Six general practices in Leicestershire.
Participants 40 patients aged ≥ 18 years, 13 general practitioners, 10 practice and community nurses, and six practice administrative staff, recruited through participating practices.
Results Patients' and healthcare providers' accounts cited human communication, individualised treatment or management, and whole person care as features of personal care. Personal care was described in three different contextsa continuing relationship, a single consultation, and from the practice as a whole. The extent to which a continuing relationship was important for personal care was determined by the reason for consulting, as well as patients' consulting history and lifestyle.
Conclusions Patients, general practitioners, primary care nurses, and administrative staff hold similar views on the meaning of personal care, despite differences of emphasis reflecting their different roles. Personal care is promoted by but not always dependent on a continuing provider-patient relationship; human communication and individualised care emerged as important in making care personal whatever the context. Most respondents valued relationships in primary care and had clear ideas about when care in the context of a relationship was most valuable.
However, recent and forthcoming changes in the organisation of primary care in the NHS and the role of GPswhich are intended to improve some aspects of caremay reduce continuity of care, and this in turn may threaten personal care. For example, primary healthcare teams have been growing in size,8 and patients have greater choice of provider, including access to the telephone helpline NHS Direct and in some places walk-in centres. Government policy for England states that patients should be able to get an appointment with a GP within 48 hours,9 and a report on the future of health services predicts further changes, including the provision of much routine care by nurses and assistants, allowing GPs to become more specialised.10 The new draft GP contract proposes practice lists rather than personal lists of registered patients.11
Despite these changes, it is not clear whether concern about personal care is well founded or what action can be taken in response. The nature of personal care has been little studied; previous research has focused on the doctor-patient relationship,12 13 but there may be other ways of making care personal.
We report a qualitative study of the nature of personal care. We aimed to explore (a) patients' perceptions of the features of personal care and how far these are shared by healthcare providers, (b) whether a continuing provider-patient relationship is essential for care to be personal, and (c) the circumstances under which a continuing relationship is important.
We used a narrative based approach in interviews, with a topic guide specifying open ended exploration of the meaning, value, and priority given to personal care, and of factors that facilitated or inhibited it, in the context of each respondent's experience. KW and CT did the interviews, which lasted 30-90 minutes; all but two interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. One GP and one patient requested note taking only. Both interviewers kept reflective diaries, providing an audit trail relating the content and context of each interview to themes emerging during concurrent analysis.
Analysis of the data followed the "framework" approach.14 CT and KW developed descriptive codes from independent repeated readings of transcripts, then identified emerging themes on the basis of initial indexing, hierarchical grouping of codes, and discussion of individual transcripts. Themes were validated by discussion among all authors after independent reading of a sample of transcripts.
At this stage of the analysis, three focus groups of patients (28 people) and four of health professionals (18 GPs, eight practice or community nurses, and eight administrative staff) were held to test the validity of initial interpretations. We recruited participants from the participating practices and from a local support network of singlehanded practices (we had had only one singlehanded practitioner in the initial sample and wanted more views from this group). Participants discussed statements relating to identified themes and were asked to give examples of any opposing beliefs. Subsequently all the original interviewees were invited to provide postal feedback on an interim report of the findings.
This process resulted in preliminary themes being revised and developed into thematic frameworks. We drew up charts for each interviewee, summarising the meanings of personal care and the contexts within which it featured.
|
|
Features of personal care
We identified three main features of personal care from interviewees'
accounts: human communication, individualised or tailored care, and
"whole person" or holistic care.
Human communication
Human communication was the most prominent theme in patients' accounts of
their experiences of personal care and was also central in accounts of
providers (GPs, nurses, and administrative staff). This theme encom-passed
good interpersonal or communication skills on the part of the provider,
evidence of empathy, and the perception that providers listened and "had
time" for the patient. Social talk and appropriate use of humour were
also described (box 1).
Individualised or tailored care
Individualised diagnosis, treatment, and management was also an important
theme, although patients were less likely than providers to explicitly
describe personal care in these terms. GPs and nurses talked about tailoring
their management of conditions and their information giving, and reception and
administrative staff talked about tailoring their social talk, as specific
ways of providing personal care (box 2).
|
|
"Whole person" or holistic care
Many patients' accounts centred on dealing with the "whole
person" in the context of their life and illness, rather than just
treating the presenting illness. Patients often referred to the importance of
professionals knowing about them and their family history. This theme also
featured strongly in health professionals' accounts. It was particularly
salient for nurses, who described themselves as specialists in this respect.
Receptionists also emphasised the need to understand the life context
surrounding a patient's behaviour (box 3).
Differences among participants' accounts
All accounts described personal care as treating someone as an individual
person rather than just another patient. Patients tended to focus on the
experience of receiving personal care, and human communication was central to
this. GPs, nurses, and practice staff described how they tried to provide
personal carethrough individual, tailored treatment and by treating the
whole personalthough they also recognised the role of human
communication. There were also differences in emphasis among the different
professional groups. Nurses often defined personal care as holistic care and
described this as fundamental to their role. GPs tended to focus on the
importance of a continued relationship in developing personal knowledge and of
maintaining consistency and effectiveness of treatment. Receptionists were
particularly keen to ensure that the practice seemed friendly.
Is a continuing relationship always necessary for personal care?
Personal care was usually described in the context of a continuing
provider-patient relationship. However, both patients and providers described
personal care in two other contexts: in a single encounter with an unfamiliar
provider and in the practice as a whole.
|
|
The continuing relationship
A continuing relationship was central to many accounts of personal care
(box 4). The patient could become familiar with the provider, and the provider
had the opportunity to develop personal knowledge of the patientfor
example, his or her illness, social circumstances, or family
historywhich helped them to provide individualised and holistic care.
Personal care in a relationship was valued for fostering trust and confidence,
putting the patient at ease, facilitating open communication, and promoting
better long term management.
However, not all continuing relationships between patients and health professionals were described as including personal care. Care was not seen as personal when previous consultations were not referred back to or built on, despite repeated encounters, or when patients felt they were not being responded to in an appropriate or human way.
The brief encounter
Although continuing relationships were seen as promoting personal care,
some patients reported receiving personal care in a single consultation with
an unfamiliar provider. Patients' accounts of these "brief
encounters" emphasised good human communication skills and empathy (box
5).
Although health professionals believed that personal care in a brief encounter was possible, GPs were more reluctant than nurses to describe personal care in these terms. Providers described communication skills and responsiveness to patients' feelings as important in this context; having the time to use these skills was crucial.
Personal care in a brief encounter was seen as helping to put patients at ease and making it easier for patients to discuss concerns and ask questions. In some cases patients saw such care as a motivating factor in developing a continuing relationship and sought to consult the same health professional for future consultations.
Practice level personal care
Many patients felt that the wider practice team, and receptionists in
particular, were as important as individual health professionals in making
care personal (box 6). This was reflected in receptionists' accounts, although
some felt this role could be difficult, particularly when under pressure.
GPs were relatively unlikely to describe "practice level" personal care unprompted, but both nurses and receptionists felt that good communication within the practice team promoted personal care (box 6). This was viewed as particularly important for patients with complex or chronic problems. Practice level personal care seemed to be easier to achieve when all staff felt involved in the practice, shared common goals, and had developed informal ways of communicating about patients.
|
|
|
Under what circumstances is a continuing relationship important?
GPs, nurses, receptionists, and patients agreed about when a continuing
relationship was important in making care personal. Their accounts suggested
that the need for a continuing relationship depended primarily on three
things: the patient's reason for consulting, the consulting history, and the
social context and lifestyle of the patient.
Reason for consulting
When a patient's reason for consulting involved an acute, easily resolved
problem, most patients and health professionals felt that care could be
personal in a brief encounter. However, if a problem was long term or complex
or if it involved emotional concerns, a long term relationship was often seen
as essential. Under these conditions interviewees felt that a health
professional needed to be familiar with the patient's background and concerns,
and patients were prepared to wait for an appointment to get this level of
personal care (box 7).
In some circumstances personal care in a continuing relationship was seen as undesirable, particularly when dealing with an issue that might disrupt an otherwise successful relationship or when care from a familiar health professional might cause embarrassment. Health professionals acknowledged needing to be sensitive to this (box 7).
Consulting history
Patients who had already built a relationship with a provider through past
consultations emphasised the importance of a continuing relationship in
ensuring that the care they received was personal (box 7). Patients who
consulted several different health professionalsfor example, in a large
practice or because of the nature of their illnesswere more likely to
feel that care could be personal in other contexts.
Social context and lifestyle
Patients who saw themselves as busy or who had chaotic lives were more
likely to value quick access and were more likely to feel that they could get
personal care without a continuing relationship. Some patients felt that
continuing relationships were central to their way of life and were less
likely to describe personal care in other contexts (box 7).
Healthcare providers were pragmatic in their view of whether a continuing relationship was essential for personal care. GPs usually described continuing relationships as necessary for personal care, but if they had many patients with busy or chaotic lifestyles, they were likely to describe meeting patients' access needs as being part of making care personal.
Patients, GPs, practice and community nurses, and administrative staff held similar views on the core meaning of personal care, despite differences of emphasis reflecting their different roles. GPs in particular emphasised the value of a continuing relationship in making care personal; this may reflect both their acceptance of traditional definitions of personal care and their specific professional values. However, patients do not always regard an ongoing relationship as essential to personal care.
The study involved a limited number of patients and health professionals from a limited number of practices in one area in the United Kingdom, and the results reflect the views of this group. However, we interviewed participants with diverse characteristics and included the views not only of patients and GPs but also of practice nurses and receptionists, who have generally been excluded from previous studies. Experiences of and beliefs about personal care were explored in depth. Despite the diversity of the sample, common features were identified in descriptions of what made care personal.
The features central to personal care are similar to those identified by Arborelius and Bremberg.13 However, this study explored the wider context of primary care rather than focusing solely on the relationship between GP and patient and has shown that personal care is not limited to the context of the GP-patient relationship.
Other research has shown that a personal relationship is valued by patients and GPs, when patients have serious, psychological, or family problems.16 17 Our findings also show that personal care in the context of a relationship is particularly valuable to patients who have complex or ongoing problems or problems with a high subjective impact. We are now studying the circumstances under which a continuing relationship is given priority by patients.
We found that patients and health professionals alike emphasise the value of personal care. This suggests that primary care trusts, practices, and individual professionals should ensure that personal care is maintained despite changes in primary care delivery. This means promoting other routes to personal care in addition to providing opportunities for continuing relationships.
Good communication featured as an essential component of personal care, especially from the recipients' viewpoint. If GPs and other practice members wish to focus on developing personal care, developing communication skills would be an important step.18 Additionally, managers should make sure staff have the time and support to use communication skills effectively. The study has highlighted that receptionists play an important role in patients' experiences of personal care; receptionists' contribution to practice level personal care should be recognised and supported by practices. The organisation and culture of a practice were also seen as having an influence on personal care, and research on this issue and on the role of receptionists in personal care would be valuable.19
|
Contributors: RB, MB, and GF designed the study protocol. KW and CT conducted the interviews. All authors helped in the analysis and interpretation of the interview data and in writing the paper. CT will act as guarantor for the paper.
Funding: Trent NHS Executive's policy and practice R&D programme. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: Leicestershire research ethics committee approved the study.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses