It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Objective: To explore general practitioners (GPs’) experiences from consultations when a patient’s request is denied, and outcomes of such incidents.
Design and participants: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured individual interviews with six GPs in Norway. We asked them to tell about experiences from specific encounters where they had refused a patient’s request. The texts were analysed with Systematic Text Condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis.
Main outcome measures: Accounts of experiences from consultations when GPs refused their patients’ requests.
Results: Subjects of dispute included clinical topics like investigation and treatment, certification regarding welfare benefits and medico-legal issues, and administrative matters. The arguments took different paths, sometimes settled by reaching common ground but more often as unresolved disagreement with anger or irritation from the patient, sometimes with open hostility and violence. The aftermath and outcomes of these disputes lead to strong emotional impact where the doctors reflected upon the incidents and sometimes regretted their handling of the consultation. Some long-standing and close patient–doctor relationships were injured or came to an end.
Conclusions: The price for denying a patient’s request may be high, and GPs find themselves uncomfortable in such encounters. Skills pertaining to this particular challenge could be improved though education and training, drawing attention to negotiation of potential conflicts. Also, the notion that doctors have a professional commitment to his or her own autonomy and to society should be restored, through increased emphasis on core professional ethics in medical education at all levels.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Research Unit for General Practice, Uni Research Health, Bergen, Norway;
2 Research Unit for General Practice, Uni Research Health, Bergen, Norway;; Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway;; The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark