Differences in triage and medical confidentiality between prisons of Belgium and the Netherlands.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to describe the opinions of prison doctors, and to compare the primary health care in prisons between Belgium and the Netherlands.Methods: Structured interviews, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, were conducted with prison doctors in Dutch-speaking prisons in Flanders/Belgium and in the Netherlands. Two investigators analysed the content of the interviews and discussed each individual interview.Results: In total 37 interviews were conducted in 28 prisons (14 in each country). In Belgium, 14 of 17 prison doctors, compared to 1 of 12 in the Netherlands, experienced higher time pressure during their consultations in prison, compared to their private medical work (P < 0.001). In the Netherlands, compared to Belgium, there is more access to psychiatric support (14/14 vs 11/22, P = 0.002), psychological care (13/13 vs 7/22, P < 0.001), and interpreter facilities (15/22 vs 0/14, P < 0.001). Prison doctors in both countries agree that the possibility for a strictly personal encounter with the patient - without the presence of other medical staff - can be very useful (21/22 in Belgium vs 15/15 in the Netherlands). In Belgium, individual consultations with the detainee are not possible.Conclusions: Compared to the situation in the Netherlands, the medical work of prison doctors in Belgium is characterized by time pressure and lack of psychiatric and psychological support. The absence of interpreter facilities in Belgium handicaps the quality of the primary health care in prisons. In addition, the lack of private encounters with a doctor in Belgian prisons violates the patient rights of the detainee.

Video-recording consultations for educational purposes in out-of-hours primary care: patients and physicians are willing to participate.

Background Video-recordings of consultations are used by general practitioner (GP) trainees to enable reflection on aspects of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Typically, these recordings are made during office hours in general practice, but little is known about using video-recording during out of hours (OOH) care, which is an important and distinct part of a GP's work. To be able to record consultations during OOH care (i.e. at the emergency department (ED) and at the General Practitioner Cooperative (GPC)), patients must be willing to cooperate and give informed consent. Therefore, it was of interest to investigate potential barriers in these OOH settings. Methods A questionnaire on demographics and attitudes regarding consent was administered to patients and physicians at the ED and at the GPC in Sint-Niklaas, Belgium. Results A total of 346 questionnaires were completed, 23 by physicians and 323 by patients. A majority of the patients (225/286 (79%)) would consent to video-recording the consultation, without physical examination. Almost all physicians (21/23) would agree to participate. Overall, 85% (260/323) of the patients agree when only the doctor was being recorded. Patients were neutral in recording in 79% (88/224) at the GPC and 57% (56/99) at the ED. Shyness or embarrassment was present in 32% (71/224), and 28% (28/99) at the GPC and ED, respectively. We did not find any significant differences in giving consent or feelings between patients at the GPC and ED. Conclusion A vast majority of both patients and physicians would consent to video-recording their consultation in OOH primary care settings (GPC and ED), with possible concerns about privacy, shame and discomfort.

Is it possible to register the ideas, concerns and expectations behind the reason for encounter as a means of classifying patient preferences with ICPC-2?

BACKGROUND: Family practice aims to recognize the health problems and needs expressed by the person rather than only focusing on the disease. Documenting person-related information will facilitate both the understanding and delivery of person-focused care. Aim To explore if the patients' ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE) behind the reason for encounter (RFE) can be coded with the International Classification of Primary Care, version 2 (ICPC-2) and what kinds of codes are missing to be able to do so. METHODS: In total, 613 consultations were observed, and patients' expressions of ICE were narratively recorded. These descriptions were consequently translated to ICPC codes by two researchers. Descriptions that could not be translated were qualitatively analysed in order to identify gaps in ICPC-2. RESULTS: In all, 613 consultations yielded 672 ICE expressions. Within the 123 that could not be coded with ICPC-2, eight categories could be defined: concern about the duration/time frame; concern about the evolution/severity; concern of being contagious or a danger to others; patient has no concern, but others do; expects a confirmation of something; expects a solution for the symptoms without specification of what it should be; expects a specific procedure; and expects that something is not done. Discussion Although many ICE can be registered with ICPC-2, adding eight new categories would capture almost all ICE.