Patient motives for contacting out-of-hours care in Denmark: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients in need of acute health care do not always contact the most suitable health care service provider. Contacting out-of-hours primary care for an urgent problem may delay care, whereas contacting emergency medical services for a non-urgent problem could ultimately affect patient safety. More insight into patient motives for contacting a specific health care provider may help optimise patient flows. This study aims to explore patient motives for contacting out-of-hours primary care and the emergency medical services in Denmark. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study by sending a questionnaire to patients contacting out-of-hours primary care and emergency medical services, both of which can be directly contacted by patients, in two of five Danish regions in 2015. As we aimed to focus on the first access point, the emergency department was not included. The questionnaire included items on patient characteristics, health problem and 26 pre-defined motives. Descriptive analyses of patient characteristics and motives were conducted, stratified by the two health care service providers. Factors associated with contacting each of the two service providers were explored in a modified Poisson regression analysis, and adjusted risk ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Three key motives for contacting the two service providers were identified: 'unpleasant symptoms', 'perceived need for prompt action' and 'perceived most suitable health care provider'. Other important motives were 'need arose outside office hours' and 'wanted to talk to a physician' (out-of-hours primary care) and 'expected need for ambulance' and 'worried' (emergency medical services). Higher probability of contacting the emergency medical services versus out-of-hours primary care was seen for most motives relating to own assessment and expectations, previous experience and knowledge, and own needs and wishes. Lower probability was seen for most motives relating to perceived barriers and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Patient motives for contacting the two health care service providers were partly overlapping. The study contributes with new knowledge on the complex decision-making process of patients in need of acute health care. This knowledge could help optimise existing health care services, such as patient safety and the service level, without increasing health care costs.

Multiple somatic symptoms in primary care patients: a cross-sectional study of consultation content, clinical management strategy and burden of encounter.

BACKGROUND: Consultations involving patients with multiple somatic symptoms may be considered as challenging and time-consuming by general practitioners (GPs). Yet, little is known about the possible links between consultation characteristics and GP-experienced burden of encounter. We aimed to explore consultation content, clinical management strategies, time consumption and GP-experienced burden of encounters with patients suffering from multiple somatic symptoms as defined by the concept of bodily distress syndrome (BDS). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of patient encounters in primary care from December 2008 to December 2009; 387 GPs participated (response rate: 44.4 %). Data were based on a one-page registration form completed by the GP and a patient questionnaire including the 25-item BDS checklist for somatic symptoms. Using logistic regression analyses, we compared patients who met the BDS criteria with patients who did not. RESULTS: A total of 1505 patients were included (response rate: 55.6 %). Health problems were less frequently reported as 'new' in patients with BDS (odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.54; 0.97). Medical prescriptions and referral rates were comparable in the two patient groups. Consultations focusing on mainly biomedical aspects were less frequent among patients with BDS (OR = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.22; 0.43), whereas additional biomedical and psychosocial problems were more often discussed. GPs were more likely to ensure continuity of care in BDS patients by watchful waiting strategies (OR = 2.32, 95 % CI: 1.53; 3.52) or scheduled follow-up visits (OR = 1.61, 95 % CI: 1.09; 2.37). Patients with BDS were found to be more time-consuming (OR = 1.77, 95 % CI: 1.26; 2.48) and burdensome (OR = 2.54, 95 % CI: 1.81; 3.55) than patients without BDS. However, after adjustments for biomedical and psychosocial content of the consultation, the identified differences for time consumption and burden were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BDS represent higher care complexity in terms of biomedical and psychosocial needs. GPs seem to allow space and time for discussing these issues and to aim at ensuring continuity in care through watchful waiting or scheduled follow-up consultations. However, the reported GP-experienced burden call for professional development.

Association of GPs' risk attitudes, level of empathy, and burnout status with PSA testing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Rates of prostate specific antigen (PSA) test ordering vary among GPs. AIM: To examine whether GPs' risk attitude, level of empathy, and burnout status are associated with PSA testing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Register and questionnaire study including 129 solo GPs (active in the Central Denmark Region) and 76 672 of their adult male patients with no history of or current prostate cancer diagnosis. METHOD: PSA tests from 2012 were retrieved from a register and classified as incident (that is, the first PSA test within 24 months), repeated normal, or repeated raised tests. This was merged with information on GPs' risk attitudes, empathy, and burnout status from a 2012 survey. RESULTS: Patients registered with a GP with a high score on anxiety caused by uncertainty (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 1.06, P = 0.025) or concern about bad outcomes (OR 1.04; 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.08, P = 0.034) were more likely to have an incident PSA test, whereas those registered with a GP with increased tolerance for ambiguity were less likely (OR 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.00, P = 0.025). Patients registered with a GP reporting high tolerance for ambiguity (OR 0.96, 95% CI = 0.94 to 0.99, P = 0.009) or high propensity to risk-taking (OR 0.97, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.00, P = 0.047) were less likely to have a repeated normal PSA test. CONCLUSION: Various aspects of GPs' risk-taking attitudes were associated with patients' probability of having an incident and a repeated normal PSA test. The probability of having a repeated raised PSA test was not influenced by any of the psychological factors. Burnout and empathy were not associated with PSA testing.