Patients' evaluation of quality of care in general practice: what are the cultural and linguistic barriers?

OBJECTIVE: Increased migration implies increased contacts for physicians with patients from diverse cultural backgrounds who have different expectations about healthcare. How satisfied are immigrant patients, and how do they perceive the quality of care? This study investigated which patient characteristics (such as cultural views and language proficiency) are related to patients' satisfaction and perceived quality of care. METHODS: Patients (n=663) from 38 general practices in Rotterdam (The Netherlands) were interviewed. General satisfaction with the general practitioner (GP) was measured by a report mark. Perceived quality of care was measured using the 'Quote-mi' scale (quality of care through the patient's eyes-for migrants), which contains an ethnic-specific subscale and a communication process subscale. Using multilevel regression techniques, the relation between patient characteristics (ethnicity, age, education, Dutch language proficiency, cultural views) and satisfaction and perceived quality of care was analysed. RESULTS: In general, patients seemed fairly satisfied. Non-Western patients perceived less quality of care and were less satisfied than Dutch-born patients. The older the patients and the more modern cultural views they had, the more satisfied they were about the GP in general, as well as about the communication process. However, non-Western patients holding more modern views were the most critical regarding the ethnic-specific quality items. The poorer patients' Dutch language proficiency, the more negative they were about the communication process. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that next to communication aspects, especially when the patient's proficiency in Dutch is poor, physician awareness about the patient's cultural views is very important during the consultation. This holds especially true when the immigrant patient seems to be more or less acculturated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Medical students and physicians should be trained to become aware of the relevance of patients' different cultural backgrounds. It is also recommended to offer facilities to bridge the language barrier, by making use of interpreters or cultural mediators.

[The practice guideline 'Viral hepatitis and other liver diseases' (second revision) from the Dutch College of General Practitioners; a response from the perspective of general practice]. / De standaard 'Virushepatitis en andere leveraandoeningen' (tweede herziening) van het Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap; reactie vanuit de huisartsgeneeskunde.

This revised practice guideline appears to concern a relatively arbitrarily chosen group of liver diseases. Why not choose for hepatitis alone or for a complete liver practice guideline? The approach to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis does not differ from that of other lifestyle diseases. The elaboration on hepatitis misses the importance of the ethnic risk factor even though there is much literature evidence to support this association. This is not in accordance with the new policy of the Dutch College of General Practitioners to pay more attention to ethnic factors in practice guideline development. Apart from these criticisms, the practice guideline is well structured and well written, notably with respect to the strategy for hepatitis A, B and C.

Cultural dissimilarities in general practice: development and validation of a patient's cultural background scale.

Due to increased migration physicians encounter more communication difficulties due to poor language proficiency and different culturally defined views about illness. This study aimed to develop and validate a 'patient's cultural background scale' in order to classify patients based on culturally conditioned norms instead of on ethnicity. A total of 986 patients from 38 multi-ethnic general practices were included. From a list of 36 questions, non-contributing and non-consistent questions were deleted and from the remaining questions the scale was constructed by principal component analysis. Comparing the scale with two other methods of construction assessed internal validity. Comparing the found dimensions with known dimensions from literature assessed the construct validity. Criterion validity was determined by comparing the patient's score with criteria assumed or known to have relationship with cultural background. Criterion validity was reasonably good but poor for income. A valid patient's cultural background scale was developed, for use in large-scale quantitative studies.

Assessment of mutual understanding of physician patient encounters: development and validation of a Mutual Understanding Scale (MUS) in a multicultural general practice setting.

Mutual understanding between physician and patient is essential for good quality of care; however, both parties have different views on health complaints and treatment. This study aimed to develop and validate a measure of mutual understanding (MU) in a multicultural setting. The study included 986 patients from 38 general practices. GPs completed a questionnaire and patients were interviewed after the consultation. To assess mutual understanding the answers from GP and patient to questions about different consultation aspects were compared. An expert panel, using nominal group technique, developed criteria for mutual understanding on consultation aspects and secondly, established a ranking to combine all aspects into an overall consultation judgement. Regarding construct validity, patients' ethnicity, age and language proficiency were the most important predictors for MU. Regarding criterion validity, all GP-related criteria (the GPs perception of his ability to explain to the patient, the patient's ability to explain to the GP, and the patient's understanding of consultation aspects), were well-related to MU. The same can be said of patient's consultation satisfaction and feeling that the GP was considerate. We conclude that the Mutual Understanding Scale is regarded a reliable and valid measure to be used in large-scale quantitative studies.