You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Do General Practitioners Act Consistently in Real Practice When They Meet the Same Patient Twice? Examination of Intradoctor Variation Using Standardised (Simulated) Patients
Jan-Joost Rethans and Lars Saebu
BMJ: British Medical Journal
Vol. 314, No. 7088 (Apr. 19, 1997), pp. 1170-1173
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25174322
Page Count: 4
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Objective: To assess the variation within individual general practitioners facing the same problem twice in actual practice under unbiased conditions. Design: General practitioners were consulted during normal surgery hours by a standardised patient portraying a patient with angina pectoris. Six weeks later the same general practitioners were consulted again by a similar standardised patient portraying a similar case. The patients reported on the consultations. Setting: Trondheim, Norway. Subjects: Of 87 general practitioners invited by letter, 28 (32%) agreed to participate without hesitation; nine others (10%) wanted more information before consenting. From these 24 were selected and visited. Main outcome measures: Number of actions undertaken from a guideline in both rounds of consultations. Duration of consultations. Results: The mean (range, interquartile range) guideline score, total score, and duration of consultation were not significantly different between the first and second patient encounters for the group as a whole. For individual doctors the mean (SD) difference was -0.09 (3.36) for the guideline score, 0.30 (8.1) for the total score, and -0.87 (9.01) for consultation time. Conclusions: The study shows that assessment of performance in real practice for a group of general practitioners is consistent from the first round of consultations to the second round. However, significant variation occurs in performance of individual physicians.
BMJ: British Medical Journal © 1997 BMJ