Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Debate & Analysis

Is patient-centred care a tautology?: View from the Netherlands

Theo Verheij
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (588): 472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X583489
Theo Verheij
Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, the Netherlands
Roles: Professor of General Practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Medical care is by definition patient-centered. And while caring for their patients, physicians should listen to them and take them seriously. No doctor or any other healthcare professional would disagree with this statement and they are educated in this manner. At the University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht, medical students receive extensive training in communication and have to study the impact of diseases on patients' daily lives.

In the first year of the GP vocational training programme at UMC Utrecht, half a day per week is devoted solely to communicating with patients, informing them, and enhancing their coping behaviour. But, as always with principles and training, daily practice gives a diverse picture. There are many doctors who stand by their Hippocratic oath, discuss diagnostic and therapeutic options as well as prognosis, and take decisions with the consent of their patients.

Primary care physicians (and nurses) in general have a reputation for being patient-centered and having a very good relationship with most of their patients. Many surveys on patients' opinions about their GP have confirmed this. But of course there are also many examples where patients' preferences are ignored, where they are patronised and ill informed, and where the organisation of primary care is not always as patient-centered as it could be.

In the Netherlands a recent assessment of the Health Care Inspectorate showed that in 40% of all practices a patient could not get through on the telephone within 2 minutes, and that in 25% of the practices the emergency line kept people waiting for more than 30 seconds. Few practices met the patients' wishes to have evening surgeries or to provide web-based facilities to contact the doctor. As in the UK, in the Netherlands there are also many complaints about the way in which out-of-hours services work.

Will increasing the input of patients help to improve all this? Yes, absolutely, but there are caveats. Research funds and guideline committees have mixed experiences with patient involvement. In the fields of diabetes and asthma, Dutch patient organisations are well organised and have an important contribution to research and health care that really makes a difference. But regarding guidelines on Lyme Disease and the implementation of vaccination against HPV, there have been discussions in the Netherlands that have made it clear that putting patients' opinions and preferences at the centre of health care can be complicated.

Giving patients decisive influence in the policy of primary care practices, as Chuter suggests in this issue of the BJGP,1 could endanger the quality of medical care, for instance by putting patients' wishes for more readily available tests like MRI and treatments like antibiotics or antidepressants above scientific insights on the effectiveness of these tests and treatments. The challenge is, and will be, to balance patients' preferences and expectations against our professional and scientific knowledge and beliefs. Several studies have shown that GPs' judgment in balancing these factors really works and is appreciated by both patients and their doctors.2,3 Stimulating doctors to perform better in this respect by educating them and giving them feedback on their performance has also shown to improve quality of care.4

Feedback from patients should be an essential part of care, and surveys and patients' advisory boards could be very helpful. However, imposing penalties and down-side risks on practices that do not comply with certain criteria for patient-centered care, as seems to be the plan in the US,5 bears the same risks as the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the UK: some aspects of care that are directly related to selected targets seem to improve, while the effects on overall quality remain uncertain to say the least.6–8 Doctors and patients are alike: improvement of performance and cooperation with others is better stimulated and supported than forced by a top down approach.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, January 2011

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Chuter A
    (2011) The role of patients in UK primary care: from the extraordinary to the essential. Br J Gen Pract 61:469–470.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Cals JW,
    2. Butler CC,
    3. Hopstaken RM,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Effect of point of care testing for C reactive protein and training in communication skills on antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster randomised trial. BMJ 338:b1374.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Wilson SR,
    2. Strub P,
    3. Buist AS,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Shared treatment decision making improves adherence and outcomes in poorly controlled asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 181(6):566–577.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Welschen I,
    2. Kuyvenhoven MM,
    3. Hoes AW,
    4. Verheij TJ
    (2004) Effectiveness of a multiple intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract symptoms in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 329(7463):431.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Miller BF,
    2. Patel KK
    (2011) Putting patients at the centre of health care in the US. Br J Gen Pract 61:471.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Campbell SM,
    2. Reeves D,
    3. Kontopantelis E,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N Engl J Med 361(4):368–378.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Campbell SM,
    2. Kontopantelis E,
    3. Reeves D,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Changes in patient experiences of primary care during health service reforms in England between 2003 and 2007. Ann Fam Med 8(6):499–506.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Heath I,
    2. Rubinstein A,
    3. Stange KC,
    4. van Driel ML
    (2009) Quality in primary health care: a multidimensional approach to complexity. BMJ 338:b1242.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 61 (588)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 61, Issue 588
July 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is patient-centred care a tautology?: View from the Netherlands
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Is patient-centred care a tautology?: View from the Netherlands
Theo Verheij
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (588): 472. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X583489

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Is patient-centred care a tautology?: View from the Netherlands
Theo Verheij
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (588): 472. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X583489
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • SAFER diagnosis: a teaching system to help reduce diagnostic errors in primary care
  • An Australian reflects on the Collings report 70 years on
  • Emergencies in general practice: could checklists support teams in stressful situations?
Show more Debate & Analysis

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242