[How do general practitioners promote a more equitable access for patient education?]. / Comment les médecins généralistes favorisent-ils l'équité d'accès à l'éducation thérapeutique pour leurs patients.

Our research is designed to understand how and under what conditions general practitioners contribute to equitable access to patient education (PE).We conducted a survey based on interactionist sociology in a sample of 32 doctors. These practitioners worked in the context of health networks and health care centres and were also involved in the PE resource centre for the Île-de-France region, thereby providing a favourable setting for our study, also reflected by the fact that one-half of practitioners were aware of the importance of or had been trained in PE.Doctors stress that their engagement in the patient-doctor relationship does not depend on the patient's psycho-social characteristics. Their educational practice nevertheless appears to be influenced by their a priori judgement of these characteristics. Based on their judgement, some clinicians develop practices that seem to promote better access for their socially underprivileged patients. This process is facilitated by several dynamics described in this article.The results of this research open up opportunities for office-based physicians and PE development structures to facilitate better access to PE for all patients.

[Carers and the policy for autonomy]. / Les aidants et la politique pour l'autonomie.

Long-time invisible, the role of informal carers in providing assistance to elderly patients losing their autonomy is gaining recognition. A policy in favour of carers coordinated with that aimed at the people being cared for is necessary, but it is struggling to establish itself in France. Some progress can however be seen with the French bill on adapting society to the ageing of the population.

[Coordination of support to general practitioners to facilitate the patient's care pathway]. / Coordination d'appui au médecin traitant pour faciliter les parcours de ses patients.

BACKGROUND: In France, the referring GP is responsible for coordination of the patient's care pathway, but GPs appear to have few resources to achieve this task A general practitioner support network (Arespa) was developed in the Franche-Comté region (Arespa)for complex patients. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the functioning and effects, of this network on the GP's practices. METHODS: Qualitative research. Material based on individual semistructured interviews of members of Arespa staff and regulatory bodies; collective interviews of all coordinators (12; 4 groups) and general practitioners (37, 7 groups). Clinical vignettes were used to determine the nature of the coordinators' work; the doctor's perception of the network and how and why they used it; the perceived impact of the network; but also regulation byfunding bodies. RESULTS: This coordinating network can be considered to be an original case management organisation, as it addresses the consequences of the disease on the patient's everyday life in order to facilitate the care pathway and life. The main differences are that it is primarily directed to GPs and coordinator interventions may therefore focus on treatment the consequences of disease rather than the patient's expectations. Secondly, there are no eligibility criteriafora patient's entitlement toArespa intervention, which depends exclusively on each doctor's assessment. DISCUSSION: This approach is part of a specific institutional and regulatoryframework designed to ensure the use and individual and collective efficacy of the Arespa network. The authors discuss the results in the light of the literature on case management.

Performance scores in general practice: a comparison between the clinical versus medication-based approach to identify target populations.

CONTEXT: From one country to another, the pay-for-performance mechanisms differ on one significant point: the identification of target populations, that is, populations which serve as a basis for calculating the indicators. The aim of this study was to compare clinical versus medication-based identification of populations of patients with diabetes and hypertension over the age of 50 (for men) or 60 (for women), and any consequences this may have on the calculation of P4P indicators. METHODS: A comparative, retrospective, observational study was carried out with clinical and prescription data from a panel of general practitioners (GPs), the Observatory of General Medicine (OMG) for the year 2007. Two indicators regarding the prescription for statins and aspirin in these populations were calculated. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 21.690 patients collected by 61 GPs via electronic medical files. Following the clinical-based approach, 2.278 patients were diabetic, 8,271 had hypertension and 1.539 had both against respectively 1.730, 8.511 and 1.304 following the medication-based approach (% agreement = 96%, kappa = 0.69). The main reasons for these differences were: forgetting to code the morbidities in the clinical approach, not taking into account the population of patients who were given life style and diet rules only or taking into account patients for whom morbidities other than hypertension could justify the use of antihypertensive drugs in the medication-based approach. The mean (confidence interval) per doctor was 33.7% (31.5-35.9) for statin indicator and 38.4% (35.4-41.4) for aspirin indicator when the target populations were identified on the basis of clinical criteria whereas they were 37.9% (36.3-39.4) and 43.8% (41.4-46.3) on the basis of treatment criteria. CONCLUSION: The two approaches yield very "similar" scores but these scores cover different realities and offer food for thought on the possible usage of these indicators in the framework of P4P programmes.

Ethical issues raised by the introduction of payment for performance in France.

CONTEXT: In France, a new payment for performance (P4P) scheme for primary care physicians was introduced in 2009 through the 'Contract for Improving Individual Practice' programme. Its objective was to reduce healthcare expenditures while enhancing improvement in guidelines' observance. Nevertheless, in all countries where the scheme was implemented, it raised several concerns in the domain of professional ethics. OBJECTIVE: To draw out in France the ethical tensions arising in the general practitioner's (GP) profession linked to the introduction of P4P. METHOD: Qualitative research using two focus groups: first one with a sample of GPs who joined P4P and second one with those who did not. All collective interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. An inductive analysis of thematic content with construction of categories was conducted. All the data were triangulated. RESULTS: All participants agreed that conflicts of interest were a real issue, leading to the resurgence of doctor's dirigisme, which could be detrimental for patient's autonomy. GPs who did not join P4P believed that the scheme would lead to patient's selection while those who joined P4P did not. The level of the maximal bonus of the P4P was considered low by all GPs. This was considered as an offense by non-participating GPs, whereas for participating ones, this low level minimised the risk of patient's selection. CONCLUSION: This work identified several areas of ethical tension, some being different from those previously described in other countries. The authors discuss the potential impact of institutional contexts and variability of implementation processes on shaping these differences.

Advancing primary care in france and the United States: parallel opportunities and barriers.

Primary care has been identified as key to improving health care delivery systems across the globe. France and the United States have been ranked low on scales of primary care orientation. However, each nation has developed significant approaches to structuring primary care and organizing primary care-focused systems. This article reviews those efforts and finds that both nations face similar barriers to implementing many primary care initiatives.

The preferred doctor scheme: a political reading of a French experiment of gate-keeping.

OBJECTIVES: Since 2006 France experiences an innovative version of Gate-keeping which aims at regulating access to outpatient specialist care. We describe the reform's initial objectives, the political pathway which lead to the implementation of a reshaped reform and discuss the first outcomes after 1 year implementation. In the conclusion, we try to catch a glimpse for future steps of the reform. METHODS: In order to observe the implantation and impact on the reform, we used national sickness fund databases and a sample of 7198 individuals from the 2006 French Health, Health Care and Insurance Survey (ESPS), including health, socio-economic and insurance status, questions relating to patient's understanding and compliance with the scheme, self-assessed unmet specialist needs since the reform. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 2006 results show that 94% chose a preferred doctor, in a vast majority their family doctor. Impact on access to specialist care appears significant for the less well off and those not covered by a complementary insurance. From the specialist's side, new constraints on access to care seem to have been offset by rises in fee schedules. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding disappointing short terms results, the new scheme may however lead up to reinforced managed care reforms.