Document Type: Original Articles

Authors

1 Education Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;

2 Medical Ethics Department, Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Abstract

Background: Changes in expectations and requirements of the end users of medical education “community members” and evolution in health services necessitate some changes in the medical education curriculum. To achieve this reform in curricula, obtaining insight into the health care needs of community members and their comments about their physicians is highly required in community-oriented education. This survey was conducted to determine the attitudes of health care receivers toward the general physicians’ professional behavior in Fars province, Iran. Methods: This is a descriptive study and the subjects were the receivers of health care services. We selected 97 individuals in each city of Fars province using randomized-cluster sampling. The sample size increased to 150 in each city and overall 2500 individuals participated in the study. For data collection, an anonymous questionnaire was developed which was tested for the validity of the contents using the experts’ views and reliability was checked using test-retest. The data were analyzed using SPSS 14 statistical software. Results: The results of this study revealed the participants’ attitudes toward education, treatment and consultative services by physicians in Fars province. Overall, the response rate was about 95%. The patients rated the physicians’ professional behavior, as one of the key determinants of their experiences with healthcare services. Moreover, 73.2% of the participants were fully satisfied with the quality of care they received from their physicians and 24.9% were satisfied to some extent. Conclusion: According to the results of the study, the physician’s educational and consultative roles in medical education curricula must be reviewed and emphasized.

Keywords

  1. References
  2. Lindgren S, Gordon D. The doctor we are educating for a future global role in health care. Med Teach 2011; 33(7): 551-4.
  3. Maudsley RF, Wilson DR, Neufeld VR, Hennen BK, DeVillaer MR, Wakefield J, et al. Educating future physicians for Ontario: phase II. Acad Med 2000; 75(2): 113-26.
  4. Al-Moamary MS, Mamede S, Schmidt HG. (2010). Innovations in Medical Internship: Benchmarking and Application within the King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. Educ Health 2010; 23(1): 367.
  5. Tavakol M, Roger M, Torabi S. “Medical education in Iran: an exploration of some curriculum issues.” Medical education online 11 2006. doi: 10.3402/meo. v11i.4585
  6. Marcinowicz L, Konstantynowicz J, Chlabicz S. The patient’s view of the acceptability of the primary care in Poland. Int J Qual Health Care 2008; 20: 277–83.
  7. Brinkman WB, Geraghty SR, Lanphear BP, Khoury JC, Gonzalez del Rey JA, Dewitt TG, et al. Effect of multisource feedback on resident communication skills and professionalism: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc. 2007; 161(1): 44–9.
  8. Henrdon J, Pollick K. Continuing concerns, new challenges, and next steps in physician-patient communication. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A(2): 309–15.
  9. Larsen DE, Rootman I. Physician role performance and patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med 1976; 10: 29–32.
  10. Ha JF, Longnecker N. Doctor-Patient Communication: A Review. Ochsner J 2010; 10(1): 38-43.
  11. Di Matteo MR. The physician-patient relationship: effects on the quality of health care. Clin Obstet Gyn 1994; 37: 149-61.
  12. Lally JJ, Barber B. The compassionate physician: Frequency and social determinants of physicianinvestigator concern for human subjects. Social Forces 1974; 53(2): 289-96.
  13. Strasser F, Palmer JL, Willey J, Shen L, Shin K, Sivesind D, et al. Impact of physician sitting versus standing during inpatient oncology consultations: Patients’ preference and perception of compassion and duration. A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2005; 29(5): 489-97.
  14. Canale ST. Falling in love again. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: 739-42.
  15. Mazor KM, Simon SR, Gurwitz JH. Communicating with patients about medical errors: a review of the literature. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1690-7.
  16. Mazor K, Roblin DW, Greene SM, Fouayzi H, Gallagher TH. Primary care physicians’ willingness to disclose oncology errors involving multiple providers to patients. BMJ Qual Saf 2015. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs- 2015-004353. [Epub ahead of print]
  17. Leone D, Lamiani G, Vegni E, Larson S, Roter DL. Error disclosure and family members’ reactions: Does the type of error really matter? Patient Educ Couns 2015; 4(98): 446–52.
  18. Rademakers JJ, de Rooy N, Ten Cate OT. Senior medical students’ appraisal of Can Meds competencies. Med Educ 2007: 41(10): 990-4.
  19. Ringsted C, Hansen TL, Davis D, Scherpbier A. Are some of the challenging aspects of the Can MEDS roles valid outside Canada? Med Educ 2006; 40(8): 807-15.
  20. Haggerty J, Burge F, Levesque JF, Gass D, Pineault R, Beaulieu MD, et al. Operational definitions of attributes of primary health care: consensus among Canadian experts. Ann Fam Med 2007; 5(4): 336-44.
  21. Howard M, Goertzen J, Hutchison B, Kaczorowski J, Morris K. Patient satisfaction with care for urgent health problems: a survey of family practice patients. Ann Fam Med 2007; 5: 419-24.
  22. Ramsay J, Campbell JL, Schroter S, Green J, Roland M. The general practice assessment survey (GPAS): test of data quality and measurement properties. Fam Pract 2000; 17(5): 372-9.
  23. Marcinowicz L, Rybaczuk M, Grebowski R, Chlabicz S. A short questionnaire for measuring the quality of patient visits to family practices. Int J Qual Health Care 2010; 22(4): 294-301.
  24. Steine S, Finset A, Laerum E. A new, brief questionnaire (PEQ) developed in primary health care for measuring patients’ experience of interaction, emotion and consultation outcome. Fam Pract 2001; 18: 410–8.
  25. Teresa RB, Pawlikowska MBBS, Jeremy J, Walker MSC, Pawel R, Nowak MD, et al. Patient involvement in assessing consultation quality: a quantitative study of the patient enablement instrument in Poland. Health Expect 2009; 13: 13–23.