Clinical practitioners' views on the management of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS): a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: By identifying strategies that practicing physicians use in managing patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS), we present an interim practical management guide (IPMG) that clinical practitioners may find useful in their clinical practices and that may help guide future research. DESIGN: A qualitative research study based on interview data from practicing physicians with experience in dealing with MUPS and known to the physician members of the research team. A parallel exploration of patient experiences was carried out simultaneously and is reported elsewhere. SETTING: 2 urban centres in 2 different Canadian provinces in a healthcare system where family physicians provide the majority of primary care and self-referral to specialists rarely occurs. PARTICIPANTS: The physician members of the research team invited practicing family and specialty physicians to participate in the study. RESULTS: We characterise the care of patients with MUPS in terms of a 4-part framework: (1) the challenge of diagnosis; (2) the challenge of management/treatment; (3) the importance of communication and (4) the importance of the therapeutic relationship. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the details in the different parts of the framework, we propose an IPMG that practitioners may find useful to facilitate the clinical care of patients with MUPS. The guide can be readily implemented into the practice of any physician who cares for patients with MUPS.

Assessment of non-cognitive traits through the admissions multiple mini-interview.

CONTEXT: Contemporary studies have shown that traditional medical school admissions interviews have strong face validity but provide evidence for only low reliability and validity. As a result, they do not provide a standardised, defensible and fair process for all applicants. METHODS: In 2006, applicants to the University of Calgary Medical School were interviewed using the multiple mini-interview (MMI). This interview process consisted of 9, 8-minute stations where applicants were presented with scenarios they were then asked to discuss. This was followed by a single 8-minute station that allowed the applicant to discuss why he or she should be admitted to our medical school. Sociodemographic and station assessment data provided for each applicant were analysed to determine whether the MMI was a valid and reliable assessment of the non-cognitive attributes, distinguished between the non-cognitive attributes, and discriminated between those accepted and those placed on the waitlist (waiting list). We also assessed whether applicant sociodemographic characteristics were associated with acceptance or waitlist status. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for each station ranged from 0.97-0.98. Low correlations between stations and the factor analysis suggest each station assessed different attributes. There were significant differences in scores between those accepted and those on the waitlist. Sociodemographic differences were not associated with status on acceptance or waiting lists. DISCUSSION: The MMI is able to assess different non-cognitive attributes and our study provides additional evidence for its reliability and validity. The MMI offers a fairer and more defensible assessment of applicants to medical school than the traditional interview.