IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v41y1995i7p969-975.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Process and outcomes in general practice consultations: Problems in defining high quality care

Author

Listed:
  • Winefield, Helen R.
  • Murrell, Timothy G.
  • Clifford, Julie

Abstract

In order to explore the relationships between the verbal interactions of the consultation and several outcomes (patient health change, patient compliance and the satisfaction of both doctor and patient), 21 General Practitioners contributed ten audiotaped consultations each, from consecutive consenting adult patients. The effects of GP sex and postgraduate training were also investigated, but were found to be minimal. Patient health change was most clearly related to acuteness of symptoms at presentation, whereas reported compliance was predicted by patient satisfaction after the consultation. Different consultations were maximally satisfying for doctors and for patients, and patient and doctor satisfaction with specific consultations showed little correlation. This result implies that the measurement of quality of care, in general practice at least, is a more complex task than has been assumed, and in turn raises issues about whose definition of outcome is relevant in discussing quality of care.

Suggested Citation

  • Winefield, Helen R. & Murrell, Timothy G. & Clifford, Julie, 1995. "Process and outcomes in general practice consultations: Problems in defining high quality care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 969-975, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:7:p:969-975
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)00403-G
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:41:y:1995:i:7:p:969-975. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.