What do patients want from high-quality general practice and how do we involve them in improvement?

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 52, Issue SUPPL., 2002, Pages

  Coulter, Angela ^a   Elwyn, Glyn ^a  

^a PICKER INSTITUTE EUROPE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Patient involvement; Quality improvement; Self management; Shared decision making

Indexed keywords

CHRONIC DISEASE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ETHICS; GENERAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALITY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGED CARE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; REVIEW;

FAMILY PRACTICE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 0036792424     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Coulter A. After Bristol: putting patients at the centre. BMJ 2002; 324: 648-651.
2. Dunn N. Patient-centred care: timely, but is it practical? [Commentary.] BMJ 2002; 324: 648-651.
3. Moynihan R, Smith R. Too much medicine? BMJ 2002; 324: 859-860.
4. Airey C, Erens B. National survey of NHS patients: general practice 1998. London: Department of Health, 2002.
5. Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, et al. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47: 1573-1588.
6. Coulter A, Fitzpatrick R. The patient's perspective regarding appropriate health care. In: Albrecht GL, Fitzpatrick R, Scrimshaw RC (eds). The handbook of social studies in health and medicine. London: Sage Publications, 2000; 454-464.
7. Charles C, Redko C, Whelan T, et al. Doing nothing is no choice: lay constructions of treatment decision making among women with early-stage breast cancer. [Working Paper 96-17 (September)]. McMaster University, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, 1996.
8. Kennelly C, Bowling A. Suffering in deference: A focus group study of older cardiac patients' preferences for treatment and perceptions of risk. Qual Health Care 2001; 10(suppl 1):i23-i28.
9. Krupat E, Rosenkrantz SL, Yeager CM, et al. The practice orientations of physicians and patients: The effect of doctor-patient congruence on satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns 2000; 39: 49-59.
10. Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM. Patient preferences regarding information and participation in clinical decision making. CMAJ 1997; 157: 383-389.
11. Deber RB. The patient-physician partnership: problem solving and the desire to participate. CMAJ 1994; 151: 423-427.
12. Murray E, Davis H, See Tai S, et al. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on hormone replacement therapy in primary care. BMJ 2001; 323: 490-493.
13. Murray E, Davis H, See Tai S, et al. Randomised controlled trial of an interactive multimedia decision aid on benign prostatic hypertrophy in primary care. BMJ 2001; 323: 493-496.
14. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Gwyn R, Grol R. Towards a feasible model for shared focus group study with general practice registrars. BMJ 1999; 319: 753-756.
15. Bekker H, Thornton JG, Airey CM, et al. Informed decision making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 1999; 3(1): 1-156.
16. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Rovner D, et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions. (Cochrane Review.) The Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
17. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P. Shared decision-making in primary care: The neglected second half of the consultation. Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49(443): 477-482.
18. Campion P, Tate P, Foulkes J, Neighbour R. Patient-centredness is rare among candidates in the MRCGP video examination: An analysis of 2096 doctors and 14 852 consultations. BMJ 2001 (submitted).
19. Hannay DR. The symptom iceberg - a study of community health. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.
20. Vickey DM, Kalmer H, Lowry D, et al. Effect of a self-care education program on medical visits. JAMA 1983; 250: 2952-2956.
21. Popay J, Williams G. Public health research and lay knowledge. Soc Sci Med 1996; 42: 759-768.
22. Freeman GK, Horder JP, Howie JGR, et al. Evolving general practice consultation in Britain: issues of length and context. BMJ 2002; 324: 880-882.
23. The British Thoracic Society, et al. The British guidelines on asthma management 1995: Review and position statement. Thorax 1997; 52 (suppl): 51.
24. Gibson PG, Coughlan J, Wilson AJ, et al. Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma. (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library (Issue 4). Oxford: Update Software, 2000.
25. Jones A, Pill R, Adams S. Qualitative study of views of health professionals and patients on guided self-management plans for asthma. BMJ 2000; 321: 1507-1510.
26. Adams S, Pill R, Jones A. Medication, chronic illness, and identity: the perspective of people with asthma. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 189-201.
27. Lorig K. Patient education: A practical approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1996.
28. Department of Health. Involving patients and the public in health care: A discussion document. London: Department of Health, 2001.
29. Department of Health. Involving patients and the public in healthcare: Response to the listening exercise. www.doh.gov.uk/involvingpatients. [Accessed August 2002.] 2001.
30. Pickard S, Smith K. A 'third way' for lay involvement: what evidence so far? Health Expect 2001;4: 170-179.
31. Anderson W, Florin D, Gillam S, Mountford L. Every voice counts: primary care organisations and public involvement. London: King's Fund, 2002.
32. General Practitioners Committee. Your contract, your future. London: British Medical Association, 2002.
33. Coulter A, Cleary P. Measuring and improving patients' experiences: how can we make health care systems work for patients? Measuring up: Improving health systems performance in OECD countries. Paris: OECD, 2002; 211-224.
34. Birchall M, Richardson A, Lee L, Morton P. Patients' involvement in their treatment matters. BMJ 2002; 324: 516.
35. van Wersch A, Eccles M. Involvement of consumers in the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines: practical experiences from the North of England evidence-based guideline development programme. Qual Health Care 2001; 10: 3.
36. Wensing M, Elwyn G. Research on patients' views in evaluation and improvement of quality of care. Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11(2): 153-157.
37. Ramsay J, Campbell JL, Schroter S, et al. The General Practice Assessment Survey (GPAS): tests of data quality and measurement properties. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 372-379.
38. Wensing M, Mainz J, Grol R. EUROPEP: development and validation of a European standardised outcome instrument for patient evaluation of the quality of care in general practice. [Conference proceedings.] EUROPEP Invitational Conference in Copenhagen, 2-4 October, 1998.
39. Greco M, Brownlea A, McGovern J, Cavanagh M. Consumers as educators: implementation of patient feedback in general practice training. Health Commun 2000; 12: 173-193.
40. Howie JRG, Heaney D, Maxwell M, Walker JJ. A comparison of a patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 165-171.
41. Fidler H, Lockyer JM, Toews J, Violato C. Changing physicians' practices: the effect of individual feedback. Acad Med 1999; 74: 702-714.
42. Baker R. Development of a questionnaire to assess patients' satisfaction with consultations in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1990; 40: 487-490.
43. Baker R, Streatfield J. What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 654-659.
44. Gerteis M, Edgman-Levitan S, Daley J, Delbanco TL. Through the patient's eyes: understanding and promoting patient-centred care. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1993.